공사대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 468,400,836 on the Plaintiff’s 6% per annum from October 10, 2015 to June 18, 2020, and the Plaintiff’s 6% per annum.
In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s ground of appeal is with merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff performed the above-mentioned ① construction work under a subcontract from the Defendant.
Next, according to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 31, the "new cost of contract" in the item 19,514,642 to 35,904,351 won, and 4.7% of the unit price in the item 19,514,642 to 35,904,351 won, and 4.7% of the unit price in the item 1,127,769 to 3,421,705 won can be found. Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, the "new cost of contract" in the item 2,93,461 to 18,731,711, and 5.3% of the unit price in the attached Table 19, 2.4% of the unit price in the attached Table 22,93, 461 to 18,731, and 30% of the unit price in the public service, 30% of the unit price in public service.
Rather, according to the respective statements and the purport of the entire pleadings set forth in Nos. 19 and 31, the Defendant is stipulated in the instant subcontract to the Plaintiff.