beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Seoul Central District Court dated 12, 2014.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Inasmuch as the statement of settlement sent by the debtor company to the new main company was returned to the debtor company and the new main company, it cannot be deemed that there was a valid settlement agreement between the debtor company and the new main company. Therefore, from July 26, 2009 to August 17, 2009, the debtor company is obligated to pay 621,595,408 won (the amount calculated based on 295,133,500 won of labor cost incurred by the new main company while performing the instant construction work (the amount calculated based on 47.48% of labor cost, which is the ratio of labor cost to the existing construction cost) to the new main company. In addition, the debtor company applied for adjustment of the down payment according to price fluctuation to the Korea National Housing Corporation, which was the owner of the new main company on July 14, 2009, and thereafter adjustment was made on September 4, 2008.
Therefore, since the construction cost of the instant subcontract is not determined by reflecting the rate of price fluctuation, the debtor company is obligated to pay 613,368,000 won (12,170,000,000 x 7.2% x estimated rate of 70%) for the increased construction cost, reflecting 7.2% of the rate of price fluctuation in the new main company.
3) Therefore, the obligor company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 220,000,000 to which the obligor company received the obligor’s obligation to pay the unpaid construction cost claim against the new main company. (B) Determination 1) The instant subcontract between the obligor company and the new main company was terminated on September 16, 2009 due to the obligor company’s nonperformance of the contract between the new main company and the new main company. The obligor company is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost to the new main company.