공사대금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 166,754,502, and Defendant B with respect thereto from October 28, 2016, and Defendant C with respect to the said amount. < Amended by Act No. 14305, Oct. 28,
1. Basic facts
A. On December 7, 2012, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants, the Plaintiff as the contractor, and the Defendants as the orderer for work (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the total cost of KRW 330,000,000 (Additional Tax separately).
B. The Plaintiff continued the instant construction work by July 26, 2016. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 170,000,000 from the Defendants.
C. The outcome of appraisal and assessment of the entire part of the construction site at the instant construction site is KRW 328,090,457 (Additional Tax Map).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, existence of appraiser E and the result of appraisal, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Unless there are special circumstances for basic determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 170,00,000,000, which is the remainder of KRW 328,090,457, which is the sum of KRW 32,809,045, which is the construction cost, and KRW 360,89,50,500, which is the sum of KRW 32,809,045, which is the value of the construction work paid, and the damages for delay.
B. The Defendants’ assertion and its determination are as follows: (1) the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants paid KRW 72,220,000 to Nonparty F due to the construction of the steel retaining wall around the site A and housing area B, KRW 14,150,00 (Additional Tax) to Nonparty G due to the work of flat A and B; (2) KRW 8,316,000 to H company with the price of ready-mixed with the wall retaining wall in Zone B; and (3) KRW 8,580,000 to H company with the amount of KRW 8,580,000 to Non-Party B, and KRW 2,850,000 as the price of dump equipment; and (3) there is an error in the appraisal that determined that it was a defect in the wall B-3 and nump retaining wall even if there is a defect in the wall.
(2) There is no dispute as to the fact that the Plaintiff did not perform in the case of the Plaintiff’s coal operations in Zone A and Zone B, which were conducted by Non-Party G, and that the Defendants paid KRW 8,580,000 to Non-Decree Industrial Co., Ltd.
Therefore, since this part was included in the appraisal, it is excluded from the judgment of the court.
However, the foregoing.