beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with KRW 5,765,774.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the amended portion as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. From 10th of the first instance judgment to 11th of the 17th of the 10th instance judgment, the amendments are as follows.
3. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim and the plaintiff's counterclaim
A. On December 3, 2009, the Defendant concluded the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff and the construction cost of KRW 646,52,500 (including value-added tax) as of February 10, 2010, and concluded the instant contract for construction as of February 10, 2010, and thereafter, concluded the instant contract for modification with the purport that the construction cost of KRW 687,77,50 (excluding value-added tax) shall be increased to KRW 687,77,50 (excluding value-added tax). The Defendant completed the instant construction on February 26, 2010 and delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of KRW 37,730,00 to the Defendant as the construction price.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the construction cost of KRW 37,730,00 to the Defendant.
B. The plaintiff's counterclaim defenses that the plaintiff offsets the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's counterclaim. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 37,730,000 won to the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay 31,964,226 won to the plaintiff totaling compensation for delay and damages. The plaintiff and the defendant's both claims have reached a offset on February 26, 2010, which is the date of completion of the construction of this case. On July 21, 2016, the plaintiff expressed his intention to offset the above two claims against the equivalent amount at the fourth date of pleading of this Court, and therefore, it is clear in the record that the plaintiff expressed his intention to offset the above claims from the equal amount at the fourth date of pleading of this Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff's total amount of 31,964,226 won to the defendant's construction cost retroactively on February 26, 2010, which is the set-off date.