beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The facts under the recognition of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 6, and Eul's testimony to the whole purport of the pleadings. A.
MoMCo Co., Ltd and the defendant's subcontract (1) Hyundai MMco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "MoMco") contracted from Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. for the new construction of 167-32 Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "MoMco") to the defendant on May 15, 2012, the portion of metal and steel construction was subcontracted to the defendant at KRW 3,33,000,000 (including value-added tax).
(2) At the time of the contract, Hyundai IMCo and the Defendant agreed to modify the construction cost upon consultation in the event of any change or increase in the quantity of materials input at the construction site.
(3) After the modification of a design, the contents of the contract and the construction cost have been modified three times. Among the construction cost, the construction cost was reduced to KRW 2,965,60,000 on October 30, 2012, KRW 2,516,00 on March 30, 2013, KRW 2,516,030,00 on March 30, 2013, and KRW 2,362,250,000 on June 30, 2013.
B. The Defendant re-subcontract (1) between the Defendant and E was sub-subcontracted in KRW 3,056,90,000 as it is to the E, who had engaged in the construction business in the name of “F” on the day of receiving the construction subcontract from Hyundai MCo. (hereinafter “re-subcontract”).
(2) The Defendant agreed to settle the construction price according to the agreement between E and E based on the actual construction volume at the time of re-subcontract.
C. Since the process and completion (1) of the re-subcontracted construction on May 17, 2012, E had difficulty in settling and receiving progress payments due to changes in the terms and conditions of the contract and the construction cost due to the change of the design between Hyundai MMco and the Defendant, while disputing the issue of funding with the Defendant, etc.