beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 120,850,758 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 25, 2016 to September 15, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant and Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, setting the construction cost of KRW 460 million (see attached special agreement: the period of payment), September 5, 2015, completion of construction work on September 31, 2015, and 1/1,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) and commenced around that time.
B. The Plaintiff completed a new building and obtained approval for use on April 5, 2016.
C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million on September 1, 2015, KRW 50 million on December 7, 2015, KRW 30 million on February 12, 2016, KRW 20 million on March 3, 2016, KRW 50 million on March 27, 2016, KRW 50 million on May 19, 2016, KRW 290 million on June 16, 2016, as construction price.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claims as to the cause of the claim and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the remainder of the construction cost of this case KRW 460,000,000,000 for the remainder of KRW 170,000,000, and that the Defendant later settled and paid the design and supervision cost of the instant construction work in lieu of the Defendant, and sought payment of KRW 180,000,000 for the total of KRW 180,000,000 and damages for delay.
B. We look at the instant construction balance, and there is no dispute as to the construction balance, and the Defendant did not claim value-added tax against the Plaintiff for construction payment under the instant construction contract in the separate amount of value-added tax, but the Plaintiff did not claim value-added tax.
There is an obligation to pay any and any damages for delay.
However, as alleged above, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the design supervision cost of KRW 10 million on behalf of the Plaintiff or agreed to the Defendant at the time of settling accounts. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. The defendant asserts that he/she has the following claims against the plaintiff, and asserts a set-off against the above claim for construction price.
. Repair expenses, etc.