logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가단8892
공사대금
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 November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) was engaged in the business of building and construction, etc. in the name of “C”; (b) was subcontracted by the Defendant from November 20, 2015, with the construction period from November 20, 2016 to December 13, 2015; and (c) KRW 140 million of the construction amount (value-added tax on materials cost: Provided, That in principle, the volume should be settled in quantity).

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant work and the additional work, such as the construction of stairs in compliance with the Defendant’s request, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 131 million as the construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant paid only KRW 135,461,800 out of the total construction cost of KRW 166,461,800,000 for the instant other construction project and the additional construction project, and did not pay the remainder of the construction cost (i.e., KRW 166,461,800 - KRW 131,000), and the Plaintiff did not pay value-added tax of KRW 7,86,00 out of the total construction cost of materials for which tax invoices were issued from November 30, 2015 to December 30, 2015. The Plaintiff did not pay value-added tax of KRW 43,327,800 (=35,461,800 won), and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the construction cost incurred from the instant Typt and the Additional Works is KRW 117,919,913 in total, and the value-added tax is KRW 5,895,996 in value-added tax, and the construction cost paid by the Defendant is KRW 131,00,000 in value-added tax is not remaining.

Rather, the Defendant paid the price in excess of the construction cost, 7.5 million won occurred, and the Plaintiff delayed the construction, resulting in a penalty for delay 9.66 million won.

(However, the defendant did not claim a set-off or counterclaim against the payment of the construction cost paid in excess, the damages for defects, and the liquidated damages for delay.

arrow