공사대금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 17,492,472 and KRW 9,451,438 among them.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 23, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the removal of Group C’s one house reconstruction works from the D Group D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the removal works from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction works”) at KRW 220,220,000.
B. On October 30, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.
C. The Plaintiff received payment of KRW 202,50,528 in total from Defendant or C for the construction cost of the instant case (i.e., KRW 82,46,475 in December, 200, KRW 23,010 in January 23,874, KRW 2638,120 in February 3, 200, KRW 22,998,670 in March, and KRW 10,890,00 in direct management of the Plaintiff, and KRW 8,250,00 in noise measurement cost of KRW 10,89,00 in March 20.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 8, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid construction cost of KRW 17,492,472 to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff received KRW 202,507,528 from the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 17,492,472 (i.e., the contract price of KRW 220,000,00 claimed by both parties - KRW 202,507,528) and delay damages therefrom.
B. The defendant's assertion 1 argues that since the construction cost of this case is the sum of 8,462,740,000 of the vertical net installation cost and additional asbestos removal cost paid from C to the plaintiff, the unpaid construction cost should be deducted from the unpaid construction cost.
However, the above vertical network installation cost and additional asbestos removal cost are not included in the contents of the construction contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and the construction contract between the defendant and the defendant, and the above construction cost were paid to the deposit account in the name of E and F unrelated to the plaintiff from C, and the above cost of this case.