beta
(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2015.02.04 2014가단710

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded that the Defendant will accept the instant construction from the Defendant, setting the construction period of the reinforced soil retaining wall construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from July 20, 2010 to December 31, 2010 and the construction amount of 181,50,000 won.

B. After completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff received KRW 145,200,000 as the construction price from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion-based block volume for reinforced retaining walls used for the instant construction is 30,240 square meters of standard-type block (CAP) block 2,08, and 55,000 won of labor cost and equipment cost per square meter between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. If the Plaintiff and the Defendant calculates the total block requirement amount per square meter, the instant construction cost is 173,998,000 won (including additional tax): 2782 square meters (=30240 x 092) x 5500 won (208 x 045) x 5500 won (208 x 045) x 5500 x 15,818,000 won (additional tax). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated from the above amount to the Plaintiff by 200,2008,20800 won and damages for delay.

B. When calculating the construction cost of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion, KRW 132,00,000 out of the limited amount of KRW 11,850,000,000, calculated on the basis of the quantity jointly confirmed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant as 2629 square meters, is the construction cost, and the construction cost of KRW 145,20,000, including value-added tax, was paid. Accordingly, the construction cost of this case was fully paid.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff was supplied with the standard block 29,160 units from Japanese concrete company from June 10, 2010 to October 2, 2010, and 2,016 to the closure block.