beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 122,00,000 as well as the annual 6% from April 18, 201 to June 24, 2015 to the Plaintiff, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 11, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and Seongbuk-gu Seoul building expansion and remodeling (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the construction cost of KRW 250 million from July 1, 2010 to September 15, 2010 (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 10 million on June 25, 2010, KRW 70 million on November 5, 2010, KRW 30 million on December 6, 2010, KRW 200 million on February 14, 2014, KRW 300 million on September 29, 201, KRW 500,000 on the construction cost.
B. However, when the Defendant did not complete the instant construction work within the extended construction period, and neglected the construction site without suspending the construction work, and thus no longer is likely to complete the construction site, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the intent to rescind the instant contract on February 10, 2012 on the grounds attributable to the Defendant.
C. After that, the Plaintiff concluded an additional construction contract with another construction business operator, and completed the remaining construction from February 2, 2012 to May 23, 2012, and disbursed a total of KRW 122,00,000 as the construction cost.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 2-1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4-1, 2, and 5-1 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Although the Defendant received the full amount of the construction cost under the instant contract, as long as the construction was suspended due to the failure to complete the agreed time limit without justifiable grounds, the said contract was lawfully rescinded on February 10, 2012, and it is reasonable to view that the said contract was based on the nature of the instant contract and the construction cost was the amount calculated by deducting the said KRW 120 million additionally paid by the Plaintiff after rescission of the contract from KRW 250,000,000,000 for the agreed construction cost.
Therefore, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff for restitution of KRW 1220 million and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff. The defendant's claim as to the existence and scope of the obligation from April 18, 201, which is the last payment date of the construction cost, is disputed.