beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,240,00 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from August 19, 2015 to November 7, 2016, and on November 8, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Determination as to the claim for construction cost 1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Defendant’s 12 November 12, 2014 (hereinafter “instant 1”) to the Plaintiff.
) The Plaintiff claimed that the construction cost was KRW 360,800,000 (the Plaintiff claimed in the complaint that the said construction cost was KRW 360,800,000,000, but was reduced from the preparatory brief dated January 24, 2017 to KRW 309,100,000.
(2) On January 5, 2015, the period of construction from November 19, 2014 to January 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant 2”) is determined as follows:
(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4,70,000,00 for the construction cost of KRW 138,000 and for the construction period from January 6, 2015 to February 15, 2015. Each of the instant construction contracts provides that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the construction cost within 15 days after completion of each of the instant construction works. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, in order to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff, shall prepare a construction contract stating the construction cost of KRW 360,80,00 in relation to the instant first construction project and then pay the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 4,70,00 additionally due to the Plaintiff’s filing of a value-added tax return. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff may be acknowledged to have undergone a completion inspection after completion of all of the construction works under each of the instant construction contracts on April 20, 205, after deducting the Plaintiff’s remaining KRW 451,00,300,300,7000.
B. On January 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed a judgment on the claim for the payment of additional construction costs was awarded a contract with the Defendant, separate from each of the instant construction works, and completed the construction work. As such, the Defendant paid the said construction price to the Plaintiff.