beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as annual 6% from September 8, 2017 to December 5, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a supervision agreement with the Defendant, setting supervision fees of KRW 50,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and supervision period from July 2, 2014 to January 31, 2015, with respect to the construction of a commercial building on the land outside Seoul and three parcels of land (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. Since the establishment of a branch of the Defendant clan, the instant construction was completed on January 20, 2016, and the Plaintiff completed supervision by reporting the completion of supervision on the old and the viewing on January 20, 2016.
C. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 20,000,000 in relation to the supervision cost during the period for which supervision was extended by the Defendant (i.e., February 1, 2015 to January 20, 2016; hereinafter “Extended period”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 11, the purport of whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff selected the Plaintiff: (a) the construction period was extended due to the Defendant’s fault; and (b) the Plaintiff, as a resident supervisor, was not in charge of other design business or supervision until the completion of the instant construction work; (c) the Defendant is obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the Plaintiff’s architect’s remuneration incurred during the extended period as liability for damages due to nonperformance; (d) the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the Plaintiff’s expenses incurred during the extended period without any legal cause; and (c) the period of supervision extended by approximately one year due to the Defendant’s fault, accordingly, the first supervision fee should be increased to the amount equivalent to
B. As to the Defendant, the Defendant agreed on KRW 20,00,000 with respect to the extended supervision costs. ② Even if the agreement was not acknowledged, the Plaintiff was due to defective supervision, such as intrusion on neighboring land of a newly constructed commercial building, and the occurrence of defects in stairs and elevators room.