beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 132,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from June 13, 2014 to September 1, 2014, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to accept the instant contract with the term “instant contract for construction works” (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction works with the term of KRW 310,00,000 for construction cost (excluding value-added tax) and the term of construction from March 20, 2013 to September 31, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).
B. On June 12, 2014, after the Plaintiff started the instant construction work, the construction period of the instant construction work was extended, and the volume of the construction work was changed, D, which served as the Defendant’s site manager, prepared and issued a settlement confirmation statement to the effect that the Plaintiff, on June 12, 2014, recognized the Plaintiff’s additional construction cost as KRW 340,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) by deeming the Plaintiff’s additional construction cost as KRW 340,00 (hereinafter “instant settlement confirmation”).
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 242,00,000 from the Defendant as the construction price of the instant construction project.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant construction project was concluded by the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 310,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and completed all additional construction due to design change, etc., and on June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed with D and D representing the Defendant as to the Plaintiff’s additional construction cost of KRW 340,000 (excluding value-added tax) and settled the total construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff as KRW 340,000,00 (excluding value-added tax). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 132,00,000 (including value-added tax), including value-added tax, to the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) D has no authority to make an agreement on the settlement of the construction cost on behalf of the defendant. 2) The interpreter D will settle the construction cost on behalf of the defendant.