beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From June 15, 2015 to August 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) between C’s introduction around June 15, 2015, with respect to the remodeling construction for the Daegu D Land Building, which is owned by the Defendant, for the ground development, from June 15, 2015 to August 15, 2015; (b) KRW 100 million of the total construction amount; and (c) the construction details “1. temporary installation works;
2. Removal works;
3.Outing works,
4. Changho Construction,
5. Toilets works,
6. Flood control works,
7. Flooring works,
8. Internal Design Works;
9. A contract for construction work was concluded with the contractor as “a coloring construction work and military unit construction work” (hereinafter “the entire construction work”), and the part of “4. creative construction work” among the entire construction work of this case is “the instant creative construction work.” (b)
Before June 20, 2015, Around June 20, 2015, Around June 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the content that the construction period is from June 20, 2015 to August 30, 2015, and the construction amount is KRW 25 million.
C. Around August 21, 2015, when the Plaintiff performed a part of the instant construction work, it was not completed, the development of Korea’s land was suspended (hereinafter “the suspension of the entire construction of this case”).
A branch development received KRW 74 million from the Defendant according to the flag altitude of the entire construction of this case, which was conducted by the said time, and paid KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff as the price for the part already performed among the creative construction of this case.
[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, Eul evidence No. 3, the fact-finding results on the development of the court of first instance, part of the witness of the court of first instance and the court of first instance C, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties’ assertion and the key issue of this case were that the creative construction of this case was in progress only at the time of the suspension of the entire construction of this case, and the Defendant’s remainder of the original construction of this case (price 13,754,000) through C and the kn-Ra-ri of additional construction.