beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. On December 19, 201, the Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim was subcontracted by the Defendant for construction cost of KRW 73,700,000 from among the construction works of the Busan Bank Training Institute for Busan Bank, and completed the said construction works at the end of May 2012, the fact that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the construction is completed at the end of May, 2012 may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the description of evidence A and the testimony of the witness A at the trial.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 6,739,70,000 remaining after deducting KRW 66,960,300, which was paid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the plaintiff agreed to reduce the construction price of KRW 6,739,700 among the above construction price, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
On August 13, 2012, the defendant requested reduction or settlement of construction cost on the ground that the quantity of the material actually constructed is less than the quantity of the material anticipated to be originally required to the plaintiff on August 1, 2012, which is the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 3-5, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, witness B, and Gap testimony after the completion of the construction work. The plaintiff issued a marina tax invoice with "total amount -6,739,700 won" and delivered it to the defendant on August 13, 2012. It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff implicitly expressed his/her consent upon the defendant's request for reduction or settlement. The plaintiff did not necessarily express his/her intention to pay other construction cost exceeding 140,000,000 won unless the defendant issued the tax invoice. Thus, the plaintiff did not express his/her intention to reduce the construction cost, but did not have any specific intention to do so.