beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,909,415 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 2, 2014 to September 13, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 19, 201, the Plaintiff, a corporation for the purpose of construction business, etc., entered into a contract with the Defendant for remodelling of the instant commercial housing located in Seopo-si B (hereinafter “instant commercial housing”) (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the construction cost of KRW 116,00,000, and for the construction period of KRW 31,01 from February 21, 201 to March 31, 201 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and completed the instant construction project after executing the said contract.
B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 90,000,000 among the construction cost, and directly paid KRW 15,000,000 for the goods to C who supplied main facilities and equipment at the instant construction site in consultation with the Plaintiff.
【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition】 1-1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 11,00,000 under the instant contract (=16,000,000 - KRW 90,000,000 - KRW 15,000), barring special circumstances.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the portion of the claim for additional construction cost is the cause of the claim, and that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the additional construction cost equivalent to the above amount, as stated in the Plaintiff’s Additional Construction Claim No. 1 List, at the Defendant’s request, in the process of performing the instant construction work.
Comprehensively taking account of the results of appraisal of construction costs and the purport of the entire pleadings by Dolman D, it may be recognized that the Plaintiff, at the request of the Defendant, performed additional construction works equivalent to the sum of KRW 7,789,697, which was not included in the original contract, such as the statement in the separate construction column for recognition of the Schedule No. 1 attached hereto, and there is no counter-proof.