beta
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.03.25 2014가합1479

공사대금 등

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 December 12, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 886,600,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from December 12, 2011 to October 12, 2012 with respect to “B” facilities (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

The Plaintiff, among the instant construction works, did not perform some construction works included in the construction contract at the request of the Defendant, and added construction works as to the portion not included in the construction contract, and was paid by the Defendant five times until October 31, 2012.

C. “B” was held between May 2012 and August 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 11 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff additional construction costs, 383,370,000 won in total, and delay damages for the additional construction costs, as the defendant paid public charges, such as the purchase price of equipment, such as furniture purchased by the defendant, electricity charges, etc.

B. However, as seen below, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are deemed to have completed the settlement of the instant additional construction cost, etc. around November 12, 2012, which was the date of the completion of the EXPO and the instant construction work.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and the overall purport of testimony and pleadings by witnesses E, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant’s On-Site Director E a written statement of execution of additional construction work, which adjusted KRW 262,747,482 of the additional construction cost up to the time, to E on November 12, 2012 (Evidence No. 3).

(2) On this issue, E has been paid to the representative director F of the Plaintiff according to the instant construction contract by reducing the amount of the original construction contract.