beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,735,100 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 16, 2017 to May 2, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person operating a waterproof construction business, and the Defendant is a juristic person operating a waterproof and landscaping construction business.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant for the CVC sets waterproof Construction Work (hereinafter “Magju Construction Work”) from the Defendant in Gwangju City, Gwangju, and performed construction work from July 12, 2017 to August 29, 2017, and performed construction work from May 29, 2017 to September 2, 2017, under a subcontract for the PVC sets waterproof Construction Work for wooden Building (hereinafter “Bagpo Construction Work”).
C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 5 million on July 31, 2017, KRW 5 million on August 16, 2017, KRW 5 million on August 16, 2017, KRW 5 million on September 1, 2017, and KRW 35 million on September 29, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant paid KRW 23,535,894 in total, including labor cost, food expenses, and machinery usage fee, to the Plaintiff’s employees, and paid KRW 7,500 per square meter with respect to the wooden construction, and paid additional construction cost, such as fixed absence and drainage board. The Defendant did not coincide with the claim amount and calculation result of the unpaid construction cost (76,221,852) to the Plaintiff.
[≒ 광주 공사대금 23,535,894원 목포 공사대금 105,253,000원{= 방수시트 공사대금 25,635,000원(= 3,418㎡ × 7,500원) 추가공사비 79,618,000원(= 바탕처리 공사비 45,881,000원 고정부재 공사비 3,993,000원 배수판 공사비 24,882,000원 현장정리비 4,862,000원)} - 피고가 현장 근로자에게 지급한 노무비 등 17,567,042원(= 광주 공사 760,000원 목포 공사 16,807,042원) - 기지급금 35,000,000원] 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급하여야 한다.
3. Determination
A. Regarding the construction cost of Gwangju, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to examine the work cost of the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s labor cost, food, and machinery usage fee, etc. of the Plaintiff employees.