beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From June 5, 2018 to July 18, 2018, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for Ccarpets, Dcarpets, EM head office, and Fcarpets (hereinafter “instant construction”) to complete the management of the Defendant’s field manager G.
B. At the time, the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost by calculating the personnel expenses and material expenses actually paid by the Plaintiff after the completion of the instant construction work.
After completing the instant construction, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the total construction cost of KRW 26,384,700 (i.e., Ccarpet KRW 1,000,000, KRW 4,614,500, KRW 10,270,70, KRW 10,49,500, KRW 700, KRW 10,49,500, KRW 700.
Since then G confirmed that the construction cost was calculated appropriately through the field investigation, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 9 (including additional numbers), witness G of the appellate court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 29,023,170 (i.e., construction cost of KRW 26,384,70, value-added tax of KRW 26,638,470) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 23, 2019 (the day following the delivery date of payment order) to the day of full payment.
B. In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff is insufficient to believe that there is a difference in the unit price of the same material between the construction works performed at an excessively excessive and close time than the estimate presented by the Plaintiff, and that G’s signing on the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (hereinafter “the quotation of this case”) is without value due to coercion by the Plaintiff, and thus, there is no value of evidence.
However, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① the estimation presented orally by the Plaintiff before the instant construction work, are the unit price of the existing company.