beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 685,021,617 as well as 6% per annum from May 12, 2016 to January 26, 2017 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with respect to the production and installation of a pressing and the construction of Aluminium (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant construction”) among the new construction works of the apartment house “B” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) under the construction of the instant building in the Seocho-si Party A (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant contract”) with respect to the instant construction works as follows:
No Construction Costs (including value-added tax) 1.2.15 December 15, 2014, the construction cost of construction on the date of contract 1.2.1 to December 15, 2014 (including value-added tax) 1,079,870,000 won from March 15, 2015 to December 15, 2014, and the production and installation and installation and installation of the off-to-date block 1,065, 130,00 won from March 15, 2014 to March 15, 2014;
B. The Plaintiff completed the remainder of the instant construction, excluding the part of the installation of a network, and the Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant building on August 5, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 12, Eul evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. Since the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s claim completed the remainder of the instant construction, excluding the telecoming construction among the instant construction works, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost and damages for delay, excluding the amount equivalent to the lost construction cost.
B. 1) In addition to the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 5, the defendant paid KRW 1.63 billion to the plaintiff among the total construction cost of KRW 2.695 million as stipulated in the contract in this case, and paid KRW 297,378,383 directly to the plaintiff's sewage supplier, etc. according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is entitled to have paid KRW 1.685,021,617 for the remainder of the construction cost due to the failure to pay the plaintiff, excluding KRW 78,100,000, which the plaintiff is the plaintiff (=).