beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from April 21, 2013 to September 10, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who performs interior works and advertising agency works with the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is a person who operates a fish driving school with the 3, 4, and 4, and 5th floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a digital visual 2 assessment room (hereinafter “C-building 3 floor construction”) on the third floor of C-building, and the construction of each signboard and digital studio (hereinafter “building construction”) on the fourth floor of C-building, the fourth floor of D-building, and the fourth and fifth floor of D-building, and completed the construction of the C-building 3 floor construction on March 7, 2013, and the instant construction on April 21, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence 6 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant completed the construction of the 3rd floor of the building, received full payment of KRW 76,593,00 from the Defendant, and completed the construction of the instant construction from the Defendant during March 2013, by being awarded a contract with the Defendant for KRW 110,000 (including value-added tax).
However, on April 3, 2013, the defendant paid only KRW 55 million to the plaintiff on April 3, 2013, and did not pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 55 million.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the payment of the construction cost of KRW 5 million and the damages for delay.
B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the instant construction project and the C building construction as the same by the Defendant, and the amount required during the construction process shall be paid in installments, without any separate provision, as to the construction cost at the time of the completion of the said construction work, and the Plaintiff additionally paid the shortage
However, the defendant paid a total of KRW 131,593,00 to the plaintiff, and the defendant does not have the additional construction cost.
3. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion or video as to the cause of the claim as stated in the evidence Nos. 6 through 8.