beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,214,983 as well as 6% per annum from January 1, 2014 to June 26, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 30, 2013, the Plaintiff, as a company specializing in blasting, entered into an initial agreement with the Defendant to supply and demand cancer construction among the riverside apartment construction works, by setting the construction period from December 26, 2012 to May 31, 2013, and by setting the construction cost of KRW 515,00,000,00.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant may set the construction period on June 4, 2013.
6. Having entered into the first agreement to extend the work price to 30.30 and to increase to 598,000,000 won:
7. 12. Around December 31, 12, concluded the second amendment agreement to add the construction cost to KRW 665,000,000, even if the construction period had been extended up to December 31.
(hereinafter referred to as "the instant construction contract" in the context of the initial agreement and the agreements for the first and second changes, hereinafter referred to as "the instant construction contract"). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and Eul 1, 2, and 3 respectively, the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff, in the instant construction contract, asserts that the unit price for blasting is KRW 8,213 per one cubic meter, and that the Plaintiff agreed to determine the amount calculated by multiplying the quantity of blasting by the actual amount of blasting as the construction cost, and sought the remainder after deducting the amount already paid from the amount calculated as above.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant construction contract is “the so-called “TURNKY contract” in which the construction cost is determined at a fixed amount regardless of the actual blasting work quantity.
B. In light of the following circumstances, the method of calculating the construction cost, the evidence mentioned above, and the testimony described in the items A and 6-1 to 6-8, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the final renewed agreement is not a strict internship contract with which there is no possibility of changing the future amount, but a pure blasting except for other work, such as flazama cancer and rock cancer, even if the final renewed agreement is not a strict internship contract with which there is no possibility of changing the future amount.