Dai Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheongung Law, Attorney Shin-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Yang & Yang, Attorney Kang Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 23, 2012

1. The defendant pays to the plaintiff 900,645,313 won and 867,388,092 won per annum from March 30, 2010 to December 28, 2012; 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; 33,257,221 won per annum from August 8, 2012 to December 28, 2012 to the day of full payment; 5% per annum from the next day to December 28, 2012 to the day of full payment; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 60% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant's decision that with respect to the plaintiff 2,393,901,578 won and the 2,228,301,578 won among them, 9% per annum from July 1, 2008 to the rendering of the judgment of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment day, with respect to the remaining 165,60,000 won, 20% per annum from the day following the rendering of the judgment of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Recognition of basic facts;

A. Around November 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the land (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the content that the construction work, which is part of the construction work that newly constructed “○○○ Welfare Center for the Aged” on the land (hereinafter “instant construction work”), located on the land (hereinafter “instant construction work”), including the 4,730,000,000 won for the construction work, the date of completion, May 31, 2009; the interest rate for the delay in the payment of the construction work; 9% per annum for the interest rate for the delay in the payment of the construction work; and the payment for completed work, for the payment to be paid at the rate of the extension rate of bank loans (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. The construction of this case was suspended on June 6, 2008 while the Plaintiff had been running the construction of this case from around December 6, 2007.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 8 (including the number with each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff had completed approximately 70 to 80% of the instant construction work, while the Defendant had been awarded a contract for the instant construction work with the Defendant, was suspended on June 2008 on the wind that the Defendant did not select a construction firm without paying the construction cost to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant asserts that, among the contract amount of the instant construction work, the construction cost of KRW 4,730,00,00 was 3,335,443,62, and additional construction cost of KRW 152,90,00,00, KRW 312,570, KRW 160, KRW 165,000, KRW 20, KRW 2050, KRW 206, KRW 205, KRW 306, KRW 205, KRW 306, KRW 205, KRW 205, KRW 306, KRW 205, KRW 3605, KRW 205, KRW 3605, KRW 365,27565,

3. Judgment on the argument

A. As to the amount of the construction cost of this case

(1) Construction cost under the instant construction contract

(a)Calculation of the rate of fixed interest and the subsequent construction cost;

1) According to Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 8, some testimonys of non-party 5 and non-party 6, appraiser non-party 2's appraiser non-party 2's appraisal results, and the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiff completed 53.44% of the construction of this case (28.09% of the height rate of earth and sand work, 93.22% of the height rate of household facilities work, 93.2% of the construction work of this case) as shown in the table of appraisal in the table 1.6, it is recognized that the construction work price according to the above height ratio exceeds KRW 2,527,734,90 as shown in the table of appraisal in the table of attached Table 1.6, and the appraisal result of non-party 6's appraiser non-party 2's appraiser non-party 2's appraisal results and arguments against the plaintiff non-party 2.

2) Determination on the respective relevant arguments between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

A) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Considering that the volume of earth and sand taken out from the construction site of this case is 423,285 cubic meters as stated in the 20th anniversary of the construction site of this case (Evidence No. 8), the Plaintiff’s 70,959,960 won (=423,285 cubic meters x 1,656 won) multiplied by the unit cost of transportation contract for the above soil and sand taken out of the construction site of this case, the Plaintiff’s 200 cubic meters x 416,805,264 won for the 6th anniversary of the total volume of soil and sand taken out of the construction site of this case, the Plaintiff’s 200 cubic meters x 5th of the construction site of this case’s 5th of the construction site of this case’s 20th of the 6th of the 5th of the 5th of the 6th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the otopy of the construction site.

B) Judgment on the defendant's argument

The Defendant asserted that the above appraisal result of Nonparty 2’s appraiser Nonparty 2, who had almost completed the provisional facility construction among the instant construction works, did not entirely perform the provisional facility construction among the instant construction works, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff performed the provisional facility construction under the instant construction contract. Thus, it is reasonable to view that, in light of the following circumstances, even if the provisional facility construction works were to be performed as part of the civil construction works for installing a building, if the construction works were to be performed to the extent that the building can be promptly constructed on the instant land, if the basic facility construction was performed to the extent that the construction works could be constructed on the instant land, it is reasonable to view that the said construction works were completed. Accordingly, Nonparty 2 is difficult to view that the appraiser’s appraisal result was unfair in view of the following circumstances: (a) examining the instant construction site; (b) ascertaining the topography and ground conditions of the instant construction site; (c) the Plaintiff’s state of ground after construction; and (d) whether the basic construction at the instant site was completed to the extent that it can immediately start after construction works.

(B) Additional construction cost due to the Plaintiff’s destruction of the base

1) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of evidence set forth in 13 to 19 evidence and evidence set forth in the construction site of this case, the team of the construction site of this case consisting of ordinary rock and light rock, etc. which are greater than annual rock, and the plaintiff carried out the construction work on behalf of the facility set out in the construction contract of this case, the construction cost of the above rock 11,162,759 won as stated in the table 2-1, 36 of the construction cost of this case (as the appraisal result of Nonparty 2, the construction cost of the above rock 1,81,806,080 won was calculated as KRW 1,670, KRW 164 of the construction cost of this case) - the total construction cost of the above rock 2, KRW 166 of the construction cost of this case was calculated as KRW 75,56,00 of the construction cost of this case, KRW 170 of the construction cost of this case, KRW 16,250-15 of the construction cost of this case.

2) Determination on the respective relevant arguments between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

A) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that, based on the appraisal results on Nonparty 2’s appraisal results of the instant work site, the amount arising from the blasting ground destruction work among the instant work site shall be KRW 814,49,216, and the amount arising from the blasting ground destruction work shall be KRW 183,409,247, as indicated in Appendix 2-2, as described in Appendix 5, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty 5 with the Plaintiff to receive contracts for blasting ground destruction work from the Plaintiff on January 10, 208 (hereinafter “instant blasting contract”), which is reasonable for Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff to receive contracts for the above blasting ground destruction work from the Plaintiff on 50,00, KRW 50, KRW 50, KRW 50, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 5006, KRW 206, KRW 5006, KRW 5006, KRW 206, KRW 507, respectively.107.

B) Judgment on the defendant's argument

① Although the Plaintiff had notified the supervising party of the change of the construction cost in order to execute the instant construction work by the method of the destruction of base, the Defendant, without any change in the design or additional contract, did not bear any additional costs for the instant construction contract, insofar as the instant construction contract is a fixed contract with the Plaintiff, which is the original contractor, for the construction work within the scope of the construction cost stipulated in the contract, the Defendant did not bear any additional costs for the instant construction work. As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the construction work was conducted by taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the ground of the instant construction site consisting of an ordinary rock, light rock, etc. with high strength rather than a total rock, light rock, etc., and thus, the purpose of the instant construction contract could not be achieved if the Plaintiff had agreed to change the construction cost at the time of the instant construction site on behalf of the competent supervisory authority for the reason that the construction work was conducted without any change in the design or supervision of the Plaintiff, which is an employee of the instant construction work at the time of the change of construction site.

② In addition, the defendant asserts that the non-party 1 who completed the above construction work is also liable for the construction cost equivalent to 286,069,000 won to the non-party 1 who was awarded a contract for the said construction work. As such, the defendant also bears the liability for the construction cost equivalent to the above amount. Thus, the non-party 1 who filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim for the construction cost (Cheongju District Court 201,5087, Cheongju District Court 286,069,00 won) filed against the plaintiff in the construction site of this case and rendered a judgment that the non-party 1 had the claim for the construction cost equivalent to 286,00 won against the plaintiff. However, according to the above evidence and arguments, the non-party 1's execution of the above construction work after the conclusion of the contract of this case with the plaintiff and the non-party 1's execution of the above construction work of the above construction work of this case, the plaintiff's construction work of this case and the excavation and blasting structure of this case.

(3) In addition, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, while calculating the transportation cost for doping and rock cancer at the construction site of this case, Nonparty 2 applied 12.82 km to the transportation distance under the construction site of this case, but the transportation distance under the construction contract of this case is merely 3 km, and thus, the appraisal result as to the calculation of the transportation cost is also unjustifiable. However, considering the following circumstances, in other words, Nonparty 2 calculated the distance of sand and rock transport separately in the order of the construction date stated in the construction site of this case in the order of the construction site of this case, and determined the average distance between the construction site of this case and the shipment site of this case, it is difficult to deem that the above appraisal result of Nonparty 2 is unfair. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendant’s construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff under the instant construction contract is KRW 2,527,734,90 based on the high interest rate and KRW 37,065,311 based on the additional base return and KRW 2,564,80,301 (= KRW 2,527,734,90 + KRW 37,065,311).

(2) Additional construction cost other than the instant construction contract

As indicated below, the Plaintiff asserts that each construction work indicated in the table “construction item” column was additionally implemented under the instant construction contract, not included in the instant construction contract, as indicated in the table “the Plaintiff’s assertion” column, and this is examined.

본문내 포함된 표 순번 공사항목 원고의 주장 판단 1 가설 EGI 휀스설치 원고가 이 사건 공사현장 출입구 둘레에 가설 EGI 휀스(길이 286m, 높이 2m)를 설치하는 데 11,990,550원이 소요되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 추가공사대금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 갑 제1호증, 갑 제8호증의 14, 갑 제17호증의 각 기재 및 영상, 감정인 소외 2의 감정결과 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고는 이 사건 공사현장 출입구 둘레에 가설 EGI 휀스(길이 286m, 높이 2m)를 설치한 사실, 이 사건 공사계약서 중 공사계약 특수조건 E. 특기사항 제3항은 ‘비산먼지 및 특정공사 신고와 관련된 시설물(가설울타리)은 건축공사업체와 토목공사업체가 도급금액 비율로 분담한다‘고 규정하고 있는 사실이 인정되고, 한편 피고는 위 공사계약 특수조건에 따라 자신이 위 가설 EGI 휀스 설치비용으로 10,495,927원을 부담하고 있다고 자인하는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고는 원고에게 위 가설 EGI 휀스 설치비용으로 10,495,927원을 지급할 의무가 있다(원고는 피고가 이 사건 공사의 후속 공정인 건축공사를 시행할 업체를 선정하지 못한 이상 위 가설 EGI 휀스 설치비용으로 11,990,550원을 부담하여야 한다고 주장하나, 건축공사업체와 토목공사업체 사이의 도급금액 비율에 대한 주장·입증이 없는 이상 피고가 자신의 비용으로 11,990,550원을 전액 부담하여야 한다고 보기는 어렵다 할 것이므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다). 2 임시전력시설설치 원고가 이 사건 공사현장에 필요한 전력을 공급하기 위하여 공사현장 출입구 진입로 좌측에 전신주 및 변압기 시설 등 임시전력시설을 설치하는 데 35,800,000원이 소요되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 추가공사대금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 원고가 이 사건 공사현장에 필요한 전력을 공급하기 위하여 임시전력시설을 설치하였다는 점에 관하여 갑 제14호증의 영상 등 원고가 제출한 증거만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며, 오히려 을 제20호증의 기재와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고는 이 사건 공사현장에서 이루어진 암발파 공사와 관련한 공사대금청구소송(청주지방법원 2011가합5087호)에서 위 임시전력시설은 원고가 암발파 공사과정에서 나온 원석 덩어리를 파쇄하여 잡석으로 만든 다음 이를 매각하여 수익을 얻기 위하여 임의로 설치한 것이라는 취지로 주장하기도 한 사실이 인정되는바, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다. 3 식당기초콘크리트타설 원고가 이 사건 공사현장 내 출입구 좌측 현장사무실 옆 식당건물의 바닥부분(면적: 425㎡, 바닥두께: 20㎝)에 관하여 펌프카 1대 등을 동원해 콘크리트타설 공사를 하는 데 929,305원이 소요되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 추가공사대금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 갑 제11호증의 영상과 감정인 소외 2의 감정결과 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고는 이 사건 공사현장 내 출입구 좌측 현장사무실 옆 식당건물의 바닥부분(면적: 425㎡, 바닥두께: 20㎝)에 관하여 펌프카 1대 등을 동원해 콘크리트타설 공사를 한 사실, 위 공사비용으로 929,305원이 소요된 사실이 인정되는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 피고는 원고에게 위 콘크리트 타설비용 명목으로 929,305원을 지급할 의무가 있다. 4 조경공사지원 원고는 피고의 부탁을 받아 이 사건 공사현장 부근의 임야 위에 소나무 가식장을 조성하기 위하여 부지를 정리하고 소나무를 운반하여 식재하는 등으로 조경공사비로 8,793,268원이 소요되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 추가공사대금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 갑 제13호증의 영상과 감정인 소외 2의 감정결과와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고는 피고의 부탁을 받아 이 사건 공사현장 부근의 임야에 소나무 가식장을 조성하기 위하여 부지정지를 한 사실, 위 부지정비 비용으로 2,525,320원이 소요된 사실이 인정되는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고는 원고에게 조경공사비 명목으로 2,525,320원을 지급할 의무가 있다(그 밖에도 원고는 위 조경공사와 관련하여 소나무 운반 및 식재 비용 등을 구하나, 원고의 이 부분 주장 사실을 인정할 충분한 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다). 5 세륜·세차시설설치 원고가 이 사건 공사현장 출입구 정문에 이동식 및 고정식으로 세륜·세차시설을 설치하는 데 19,306,669원이 소요되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 추가공사대금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 갑 제1호증, 갑 제15호증, 갑 제18호증의 각 기재 및 영상, 감정인 소외 2의 감정결과 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고는 이 사건 공사현장 출입구 정문에 12,501,135원 상당의 고정식 세륜·세차시설과 26,112,204원 상당의 이동식 세륜·세차시설을 설치한 사실, 이 사건 공사계약서 중 공사계약 특수조건 E. 특기사항 제3항은 ‘세륜장설치비용은 각각 50%씩 분담한다’고 규정하고 있는 사실이 인정되는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 피고는 원고에게 위 세륜·세차시설 설치비용 명목으로 합계 19,306,669원[=(12,501,135원 + 26,112,204원) × 0.5, 원 미만 버림]을 지급할 의무가 있다. 이에 대하여 피고는 원고가 위 세륜·세차시설을 중고품으로 설치하는 바람에 설치 직후 고장이 나 사용하지 못하였고, 설령 그렇지 않다고 하더라도 피고가 콘크리트 타설과 관련하여 피고비용으로 부담한 2,042,979원 상당의 재료비를 위 공사비에서 공제하여야 한다고 주장하나, 피고의 위 주장사실을 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 않는다. 6 임목폐기물처리 원고는 토공사의 표토제거를 위해 벌목제근 공종을 시행하던 중에 발생한 임목폐기물 처리와 관련하여 임목폐기물업자와 별도로 계약을 체결한 후 위 임목폐기물업자로 하여금 관할행정청의 인허가를 받아 현장에서 발생한 531.88톤 상당의 임목폐기물을 처리하도록 함에 따라 위 처리비용으로 22,870,840원이 소요되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 추가공사대금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 갑 제1호증의 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 공사계약서 중 공사계약 특수조건 A. 공통관리사항 제13항 제3호는 ‘작업부산물의 정리 운반 반출’은 원고가 그에 따른 비용을 부담하기로 규정하고 있는 사실이 인정되고, 한편 원고의 주장에 의하더라도 이 사건 임목폐기물은 토공사의 표토제거를 위해 벌목제근 공종을 시행하던 중에 발생하였다는 것인바, 이에 따르면 원고는 이 사건 공사를 시행하는 과정에서 발생한 임목폐기물을 정리 및 운반, 반출하여야 할 의무가 있고, 피고가 그에 따른 부수비용을 부담할 이유는 없다 할 것이므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다. 7 가설사무소설치 원고가 이 사건 공사현장 출입구 좌측에 현장사무실, 감리사무실 등 가설사무소(컨테이너) 16동을 설치하는 데 7,165,040원이 소요되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 추가공사대금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 갑 제1호증의 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 공사계약서 중 공사계약 특수조건 A. 공통관리사항 제13항 제4호는 ‘가설사무실, 창고 등 가설물의 설치, 해체 및 반출’은 원고가 그에 따른 비용을 부담하기로 규정하고 있는 사실이 인정되는바, 이에 따르면 원고는 이 사건 공사를 위한 시설로서 가설사무소를 설치, 해체할 의무가 있고, 피고가 가설사무소 설치비용을 부담할 이유는 없다 할 것이므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다. 8 가감속차도 휀스 이전 원고는 이 사건 공사가 중단된 2010년경 외곽순환도로 확장공사로 인하여 피고의 요청에 의하여 기존의 현장출입구 앞부분의 휀스, 안전휀스 철거 및 설치작업을 함에 따라 위 휀스 이전공사비용으로 3,388,220원이 소요되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 추가공사대금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 이 사건 공사계약 당시 외곽순환도로 확장공사의 범위가 확정되어 있지 않았던 점 및 2010년경 피고의 요청에 의하여 기존의 가감속차도 휀스를 이전하게 되었다는 점 등에 관하여 갑 제19호증의 영상 등 원고가 제출한 증거만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

Therefore, the amount that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff as additional construction cost not included in the instant construction contract (i.e., KRW 10,495,927, + KRW 929,305,00 + KRW 2,525,320, + KRW 2,525,320, + KRW 19,306,669,000,000,000 for the installation cost of facilities for pah and tea, which are not included in the instant construction contract).

(3) Costs of soil and sand transportation under an additional agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant

The plaintiff, at the construction site of this case, was 10,00 cubic meters adjacent to the construction site. At the time of appraisal for calculating the construction completion rate of the construction work of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay expenses for the removal of the above earth and sand out to the outside, and the plaintiff later removed the above earth and sand from the outside. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff is obligated to pay 165,60,000 won for the transportation of earth and sand in accordance with the above additional earth and sand transport agreement is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as the video of No. 20, 100,000 cubic meters, which occurred during the construction site of this case, has agreed to additionally bear the transportation expenses for earth and sand generated from the construction site of this case. On the other hand, the plaintiff's assertion that the above earth and sand were necessary to be examined as 100,000 cubic meters from the construction site of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above construction expenses were included in the construction contract of this case.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Ultimately, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to pay damages for delay from August 8, 2012, which is the date following the date on which the instant construction contract ends to the Plaintiff for KRW 2,598,057,52 (i.e., the construction cost of KRW 2,564,80,301 under the instant construction contract + the additional construction cost of KRW 33,257,221) and KRW 2,564,800,301 among the additional construction cost of KRW 2,564,257,221 under the instant construction contract, to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, the plaintiff sought damages for delay calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from July 1, 2008 to June 1, 2008 on the ground that the construction work was suspended. As to the part of KRW 2,564,80,301 under the construction contract of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay 9% per annum for delay of payment of the construction price at the time of the construction contract of this case and KRW 2,564,80,300, and KRW 100 per annum for delay of bank loan of this case are as follows. The plaintiff's assertion that the above part of the construction contract of this case was not delivered to the defendant 2,000 per annum for delay of the construction contract of this case 2,000,000 per annum from June 1, 2008. The plaintiff's assertion that the above part of the construction contract of this case was not delivered to the defendant 1, 2010.

B. As to the amount of the construction cost already paid

(1) Amount to be paid by the Plaintiff from the Defendant

The Plaintiff received KRW 258,00,000 from the Defendant in cash, and ② the Defendant received the credit card under the name of the Defendant or his family members, and used the said card to pay the above card amount. ③ The Plaintiff was paid a considerable amount of the said amount by using the oil equivalent to KRW 1,144,782,209 in the Cheongju-si in Cheongju-si in Cheongju-si and the △△△△△ju-si in △△△△△△△, △△, △△, △△, 144,782,209 in 1,724,812,209 in total in terms of the construction cost of this case. According to this, the Plaintiff received reimbursement from the Defendant (=258,000,000 + KRW 322,030,000 + KRW 14,782,209 in terms of the construction cost of this case.

(2) The oil price that the Plaintiff returned to the Defendant

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should deduct the amount equivalent to the above amount from the amount of the pre-paid construction work, as stated in the following table, since the defendant returned the sum of KRW 152,200,000 to the defendant several times as stated in the above, while making payment in kind as the oil price and again returning a part of the amount in cash.

본문내 포함된 표 순번 날짜 내역 금액(원) 예금주 송금인 1 2007. 12. 5. 무통장송금 10,000,000 피고 소외 7 2 2008. 2. 1. 현금 6,000,000 피고 ㈜웅진건설 3 2008. 2. 2. 현금 6,000,000 피고 ㈜웅진건설 4 2008. 3. 11. 무통장송금 5,100,000 피고 ㈜웅진건설 5 2008. 3. 21. 무통장송금 6,000,000 ▽▽석유 ㈜웅진건설 6 2008. 3. 21. 무통장송금 2,500,000 ▽▽석유 ㈜웅진건설 7 2008. 3. 21. 무통장송금 1,500,000 ▽▽석유 ㈜웅진건설 8 2008. 3. 25. 무통장송금 7,000,000 소외 8 ㈜웅진건설 9 2008. 3. 25. 현금 2,000,000 피고 - 10 2008. 3. 27. 무통장송금 1,000,000 소외 8 ㈜웅진건설 11 2008. 3. 27. 무통장송금 3,000,000 ▽▽석유 소외 9 12 2008. 3. 27. 무통장송금 1,000,000 ▽▽석유 ㈜웅진건설 13 2008. 3. 27. 무통장송금 1,000,000(주3) - ㈜웅진건설 14 2008. 4. 7. 무통장송금 8,500,000 소외 8 ㈜웅진건설 15 2008. 4. 25. 무통장송금 2,500,000 ▽▽석유 ㈜웅진건설 16 2008. 6. 30. 무통장송금 5,300,000 ▽▽석유 ◎◎아파트 17 2008. 6. 30. 무통장송금 1,800,000 ▽▽석유 ◎◎아파트 18 2008. 6. 30. 무통장송금 2,000,000 ▽▽석유 소외 10 19 2008. 7. 7. 무통장송금 10,000,000 ▽▽석유 소외 11 20 2008. 7. 24. 무통장송금 3,000,000 ▽▽석유 소외 12 21 2008. 7. 24. 현금 29,300,000 ▽▽석유 피고 22 2008. 7. 26. 무통장송금 5,000,000 ▽▽석유 ㈜웅진건설 23 2008. 8. 5. 무통장송금 2,500,000 ▽▽석유 소외 13 24 2008. 8. 5. 무통장송금 2,000,000 ▽▽석유 소외 12 25 2008. 8. 8. 무통장송금 5,000,000 ▽▽석유 소외 9 26 2008. 8. 8. 무통장송금 1,000,000 ▽▽석유 소외 14 27 2008. 8. 23. 현금 4,900,000 ▽▽석유 소외 15 28 2008. 12. 24. 무통장송금 2,300,000 소외 8 소외 9 29 2009. 8. 6. 무통장송금 15,000,000(주4) 소외 8 소외 12 합 계 152,200,000

Note 3) 1,000,000

Note 4) 15,000,000

① 먼저 원고, 즉 ‘㈜웅진건설’이 아닌 제3자가 피고에게 송금한 금액 부분(순번 1, 9, 11, 16 내지 21, 23 내지 29번)에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제23호증, 갑 제36호증, 갑 제41호증의 각 기재 등 원고가 제출한 증거만으로는 원고가 피고의 요청에 따라 이 사건 공사대금 명목으로 변제받은 위 각 금액을 피고에게 반환하였다는 점을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

② In addition, according to the evidence No. 36, which was added by the Plaintiff through the amendment of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of November 20, 2012, as to the part of KRW 1 million (No. 13), which was March 27, 2008 (No. 13), the Plaintiff is found to have remitted a total of KRW 2 million to the Defendant on two occasions on the above date (each of the above amounts was indicated No. 10, No. 12), but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 2 million to the Defendant on the same date. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

③ 다음으로 원고, 즉 ‘㈜웅진건설’ 명의로 피고에게 송금한 금액 부분(순번 2 내지 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22번, 다만, 앞서 본 바와 같은 이유로 순번 13번은 제외한다)에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제23호증, 갑 제36호증의 각 기재와 증인 소외 6의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 위 표 기재 각 해당날짜에 이 사건 공사대금 명목으로 변제받은 위 각 금액을 피고에게 반환한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이에 따르면 기지급 공사대금에서 원고가 피고에게 반환한 금액 합계 52,100,000원(= 6,000,000원 + 6,000,000원 + 5,100,000원 + 6,000,000원 + 2,500,000원 + 1,500,000원 + 7,000,000원 + 1,000,000원 + 1,000,000원 + 8,500,000원 + 2,500,000원 + 5,000,000원)을 공제하여야 할 것이므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 있다.

The defendant, from July 2003 to August 2008, leased to the non-party 6 the third floor area of 40,420 square meters and the fourth floor to the non-party 6 the monthly rent of 2,00,000 won. The non-party 6 did not pay the rent of 121,00,000 won when occupying and using the above building, and the defendant did not pay the rent of 121,00,000 won to the non-party 6. The non-party 6's remittance to the defendant is merely a repayment of the above rent of 31-1,2, Eul's certificate of 31-2, 44, and Eul's certificate of 45. The non-party 6's assertion that the above amount remitted to the defendant is merely a repayment of the above rent of 121,00,000 won to the defendant. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(3) Defendant’s defense of repayment

(A) As to the assertion that the full payment of construction cost was made

The Defendant asserts that the unpaid construction price does not remain by paying KRW 2,939,00,00 to the Plaintiff. According to the above evidence as to the Eul evidence Nos. 32 (Certificate of Construction Price), the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation of construction price stating that “The Plaintiff shall not be paid at present upon receipt of KRW 2,939,00,000 from the Defendant” for the purpose of submitting it to the Promotion Mutual Savings Bank of Korea on June 22, 2009. However, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s representative director received a written confirmation of construction price under the above evidence and evidence Nos. 38 and the entire purport of oral argument. In other words, considering that it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s construction price had been paid by the Defendant on June 22, 2009, Nonparty 16 submitted to the Plaintiff a written confirmation of construction price payment of KRW 300,000,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s assertion that the above construction price was not paid by the Plaintiff.

(B) As to the assertion that a total of KRW 2.3 billion was paid as construction cost

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,343,60,000 to the Plaintiff with the construction price of this case, KRW 908,600,00 on April 10, 2008, KRW 770,000 on May 31, 200, KRW 605,000 on June 30 of the same year, and KRW 600,000 on January 11, 2010, KRW 2,343,60,00 on the aggregate of KRW 30,00 on the above construction price of this case, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the above amount of KRW 30,00,00 on January 11, 200 [refer to the above portion of KRW 1,60,00 on the cash payment, KRW 240,00 on the basis of the evidence that the Defendant paid the above construction price to the Plaintiff and each of the above amount of KRW 13,340,000,00,000.

(C) As to credit card payments

The Defendant: (a) obtained each credit card in the name of the Defendant or his family members, as indicated in the attached Table 4. Table 4; (b) used the credit card in the name of the Defendant or his family members; and (c) used the card in the aggregate of KRW 748,636,454 (i) (i) the electric use fee of KRW 200,569,100 + (ii) the card fee of KRW 548,067,354; and (iii) the amount in dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant out of the card use fee of KRW 548,067,354, the same as indicated in the attached Table 5.); and (d) asserted that

① 먼저, 전기사용요금 200,569,100원 부분과 관련하여 보건대, 앞서 든 각 증거와 을 제24호증, 을 제25호증의 1의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 소외 6은 별지 목록 5. 표 기재와 같이 2007. 12. 10.부터 2008. 12. 23.까지 피고로부터 피고 등의 신용카드를 교부받아 충북 청원군 (주소 3 생략) 소재 ◎◎아파트에서 발생한 200,569,100원 상당의 전기사용요금을 위 카드로 대신 결제한 사실은 인정되나, 위 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 소외 6은 2006. 7.경 피고로부터 충북 청원군 (주소 4 생략) 외 4필지 토지 위에 건물 등을 신축하는 내용의 공사(이하 ‘◁◁리 공사’라 한다)를 공사대금 1,940,000,000원에 도급받아 위 공사를 진행하였던 점, 이에 소외 6은 이 사건 공사가 시작된 2007. 12.경 이전부터 이미 피고로부터 피고 또는 그 가족들 명의의 신용카드를 교부받아 이를 사용하는 방식으로 위 ◁◁리 공사대금을 지급받았던 점, 소외 6이 피고 측 신용카드로 전기사용요금을 결제하기 시작한 2007. 12. 10.은 이 사건 공사가 본격적으로 개시되기 전으로서 피고가 위 시점에 이 사건 공사대금을 지급하기 위하여 소외 6에게 신용카드를 교부하였다는 것은 쉽사리 납득하기 어려운 점, 피고가 제출한 을 제35호증(공사대금명세서)과 을 제36호증(장부)은 갑 제35호증의 기재 등에 비추어 이를 믿기 어렵거나 위 각 증거만으로 피고가 소외 6에 대하여 부담하는 ◁◁리 공사대금채무가 2007. 12.경 이전에 전부 소멸하였다고 단정하기 어려운 점 등을 고려해 보면, 소외 6이 사용한 전기사용요금액 만큼 이 사건 공사대금채무가 변제되었다는 피고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

② Next, with respect to the remaining member card price of KRW 548,067,354 with the exception of the above fee for the electric utility, the Plaintiff received reimbursement for the construction cost of this case by using each credit card in the name of the Defendant or his family members with the above credit card amounting to KRW 322,030,000,000 from the Defendant. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, Gap evidence No. 21, and evidence No. 33 and the purport of oral argument, namely, the Defendant did not use the credit card in the name of the Defendant or his family members for one month after delivery to the Plaintiff or non-party No. 6, and the Defendant appears to exchange the above credit card with the Defendant from time to time. Considering that the Defendant did not submit evidence that the Plaintiff used the above credit card as a receipt or confirmation document prepared by the Plaintiff except for the card use directly prepared by him, the Defendant did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff used the above credit card amount exceeding the above amount of KRW 24230,25,230.30.

(D) As to the oil cost

In order to receive the construction cost of this case, the defendant used oil equivalent to KRW 1,186,027,497 at the Cheongju-si's office located in Cheongju-si operated by the defendant as shown in the attached Table 6. 6., and the defendant claimed that the above amount should be deducted from the construction cost of this case. Thus, as seen above, the plaintiff used the oil equivalent to KRW 1,14,782,209 at the △△ju-si's office located in Cheongju-si's office located in the defendant, and the plaintiff's office, etc., and the plaintiff claimed that the above amount should be deducted from the construction cost of this case. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff received free payment of the same amount by using the oil equivalent to KRW 1,144,782,209 at the △△△△-si's office and the △△△-si's station located in △-si's office operated by the defendant

(E) As to the construction price and other employment insurance and industrial accident insurance premiums directly paid to the subcontractor

1) The defendant, on behalf of the plaintiff, paid 19,50,000 won to the non-party 18, who is the subcontractor of the plaintiff, and 5,200,000 won to the central ready-mixed Co., Ltd.. The defendant alleged that the above amount should be deducted from the construction cost of this case, and according to the purport of each of the evidence Nos. 3, Gap evidence No. 4-2, and Eul evidence No. 27 and all of the arguments, the non-party 18, the subcontractor of the plaintiff, and the central ready-mixed Co., Ltd. did not receive the construction cost from the plaintiff, and upon receiving a seizure and collection order, requested the defendant to pay the construction cost of this case against the defendant. The defendant, on behalf of the plaintiff, requested that the non-party 18,500,000 won be paid to the non-party 18, May 1, 2010, the plaintiff's assertion that the construction cost of this case was not related to the above construction cost of 5,0000,000 won.

2) 또한 피고는 원고를 대신하여, 원고의 하도급업자인 소외 ▷▷조경에게 60,000,000원을 지급하였고, 이 사건 공사현장 부근에 도로포장공사를 시행하면서 소외 솔로몬건설 주식회사와 대부건설 주식회사에게 90,000,000원을 지급하였으며, 원고가 부담하여야 할 고용보험료 799,290원 및 산재보험료 2,668,990원을 지급하였으므로, 이 사건 공사대금에서 위 각 금액을 공제하여야 한다고 주장하나, 피고의 위 주장사실을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(f) As to the payment of construction cost to Nonparty 6

The Defendant paid KRW 130,00,00 on behalf of Nonparty 6 to Nonparty 19, and ② leased real estate to Nonparty 6, 151,00,00 to Nonparty 6, and held rent and loan claims equivalent to KRW 151,00,00 with respect to Nonparty 6, and ③ upon Nonparty 6’s request, the Plaintiff did not have to pay KRW 352,15,811 with respect to the above real estate under the name of the Defendant’s child after completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the real estate under the name of Nonparty 6, 3,52,00,00 in total, including all taxes and taxes related to the above real estate, and the auction execution cost, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have to pay KRW 63,15,811 with respect to the above loan, etc. under the premise that Nonparty 6 is the actual party to the instant construction contract, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above construction work price should not be deducted under the Plaintiff’s agreement and the construction work price.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Ultimately, the amount that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant as the title for the instant construction cost (i.e., KRW 1,724,812,209 (= KRW 52,100,000 + KRW 24,70,000) is the total amount of KRW 1,697,412,209.

C. As to the amount of the unpaid construction cost

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 90,645,313 won in total and 867,38,092 won in the construction contract of this case (=2,564,80,301 won - 1,697,412,209 won in total) and 33,257,221 won in additional construction contract, and 867,38,092 won in total from March 30, 2010 to December 28, 2012, which is the date following the end of the construction contract of this case until December 2012, 9% in interest rate of 867,38,00 won in the construction contract of this case (i.e., the agreed interest rate of the construction contract of this case from March 30, 201 to December 28, 2012).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)

1) The construction cost of the A East Structure Destruction of KRW 773,277,896 + the construction cost of the B East Structure Destruction of KRW 242,735,101 + the total construction cost of the C East Structure Destruction of KRW 10,760,483

2) According to the appraiser non-party 2's appraisal result, it is recognized that the appraiser calculated the construction cost for the ground destruction of the structure of this case by applying the ratio of the amount between the direct construction cost for the ground destruction of structure (2,754,40,000 won) and the total construction cost for the ground destruction of structure (2,754,40,00 won) (1.584 times, the smallest third decimal point) to the total construction cost for the ground destruction of the structure of this case, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge the specific amount of material cost, labor cost, expenses, etc. which constitutes the construction cost for the ground destruction of structure A and B, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge the specific amount of material cost, labor cost, expenses, etc. for the ground destruction construction cost. In this case, it is difficult to separately calculate the total construction cost for the ground destruction of the structure of this case.

(3) The Plaintiff added KRW 1 million as of March 27, 2008 (Evidence A 36) to the amount indicated in the evidence No. 23 (the current expenditure status of the ▽▽△△ station) through the amendment of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of November 20, 2012.

(4) The Plaintiff added KRW 15 million as of August 6, 2009 (Evidence A 41) to the amount set forth in the evidence No. 23 (the current expenditure status of the ▽▽△△ station) through the amendment of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of November 20, 2012.