beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.19 2015나100325

공사대금

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant Hanjin Construction Industry Co., Ltd. with respect to the processing, assembling and painting construction work of HDO Mean Bank’s order △1 AISSSOR construction work (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). Since then, the construction price increased to KRW 101,783,000 for total construction cost.

B. On January 24, 2013, UBV Co., Ltd.: (a) the amount of payment guarantee was KRW 75,000,000; and (b) the Defendant Hanjin Construction Industry Co., Ltd. guaranteed the Plaintiff’s payment guarantee as a contractor.

C. On January 31, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 14,883,00 as advance payment, and KRW 57,458,000 as advance payment, on March 27, 2013, and KRW 20,575,00,00 as advance payment, based on the details of the construction work, to the Plaintiff on the basis of the details of the construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul Nos. 3 and 16 (including provisional number Nos. 3 and 16), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction work was completed in accordance with the instant construction contract, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 44,325,00 and delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s assertion failed to perform its obligations under the instant construction contract, such as delaying, supplying, supplying, or supplying the steel framed map properly. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the expenses incurred in performing the construction of additional defects. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the unpaid construction cost to the Plaintiff in addition to the amount already paid.

3. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 15 and the whole purport of the pleadings: