Dai Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheongung Law, Attorney Shin-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Yang & Yang, Attorney Kang Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 22, 2014

Cheongju District Court Decision 201Gahap5322 Decided December 28, 2012

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,393,901,578 won and 2,228,301,578 won with interest of 9% per annum from July 1, 2008 to the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, with interest of 165,60,00 won with interest of 20% per annum from the date of the first instance judgment to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,493,256,265 won with 9% interest per annum from July 1, 2008 to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and 1,360,913,486 won with 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and 132,342,79 won with 20% interest per annum from the date of the judgment of the court of first instance to the date of full payment.

Defendant: as set forth in the Disposition.

1. Basic facts

A. Conclusion, etc. of the instant contract

1) On November 2007, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for soil works and incidental civil engineering works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) among the new construction works of “○○○○ Welfare Center for the Aged” on the 13 lots above the Cheongju-si and 13 lots above the Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and 4.73 billion won (including additional taxes) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

2) The instant construction project is largely divided into the first, second, and third-lanes depending on its location. The first, second, and third-lanes are divided into Adong, second, and third-lanes. The first part is B Dong, and third-lanes. The household installation project may be divided into the earth-breaking work and the earth-shield work (referring to the construction work to prevent the collapse or collapse of earth piling or earth-breaking.). Meanwhile, under the instant contract, the construction cost set up for A, B, and C Dong Earths work is a total of KRW 32,19,120 (i.e., KRW 176,950,950,00 + KRW 89,571,200 + KRW 65,677,800 + KRW 365,2000,0000 + KRW 365,365,000,000 per cubic meter and KRW 36365,5365,00 per 365,25365,25.365.35.34.2.34.35.34.4.4.34.4.4.44.4.4.44.4.4.444.

3) On the other hand, the ground of the construction site of this case was composed of Pulpham, flusium, general cancer, and light cancer in the case of A and B (A Dong part was ordinary cancer and light cancer; B Dong part was composed of Pulpham and flusium, respectively), and C Dong part was composed of Pulphram and sulphram, and these circumstances were reflected in the design of the construction site of this case (i.e., △△ architect reflected the ground investigation report on the construction site of this case prepared by ChangNC Co., Ltd. in designing the construction project of this case, and the contents of the ground investigation report are replaced by the contents of the ground investigation report).

B. Progress of the instant construction project

1) From December 6, 2007, the Plaintiff continued the instant construction work from around December 6, 2007, and suspended the instant construction work to a firstman on June 2008.

2) 위 공사 중단 당시 가시설공사 중 터파기공사는 대체로 마무리되었으나 흙막이공사는 전혀 이루어지지 않은 상태였는데, A, B동의 경우 그 벽면 부분이 보통암, 경암이 노출되어 있는 등 마치 암발파 방법에 의한 오픈컷 공사가 이루어진 것과 유사한 외관을 띄고 있고, 이에 따라 굳이 흙막이공사를 하지 않아도 되는 상태이다.

3) On the other hand, on January 10, 208, Nonparty 1 received a subcontract for cancer project from the Plaintiff during the instant construction project, and completed the said construction (the blasting at the construction site of this case was conducted only by Nonparty 1). After which, on January 13, 2012, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 determined the unit price as KRW 3,500 per 1 cubic metres from the blasting of the construction cost in the Cheongju District Court Decision 201Gahap5087, Cheongju District Court Decision 20150, May 13, 2012, “The Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 determined the unit price as KRW 3,500 per 1 cubic metres from the blasting of the construction cost. Since the volume of the earth and rocks generated as a result of the construction project is 81,734 meters, the construction cost to be paid to Nonparty 1 was determined to Nonparty 1 as KRW 286,069,50, 2500,500.”

C. Results of the appraisal by Nonparty 2 of the lower judgment

1) The number of blasting cancer blasting by the Plaintiff is 11,328 mbl, B 2,551 mbl, B, 2,551 mbl, and 71,897 won per one cubic meter (which seems to be the cost of blasting general cancer and light cancer according to the construction standard pinsem of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs). The amount required for the blasting is 97,858,463 won.

2) A, B, C동의 흙막이공사가 암발파 방법에 의한 오픈컷 공사로 대체되었다면(즉, 설계상의 흙막이공사가 이루어진 것으로 보는 것이다), 그 기성고가 53.44%이고, A, B, C동의 흙막이공사가 이루어지지 않았다고 본다면 그 기성고는 33.3%이다.

【Ground of recognition】 without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 21 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 18 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) 이 사건 공사 현장은 그 지반이 설계도와 달리 거의 경암 및 강암으로 구성되어 있어 원고는 피고와의 협의 하에 가시설공사를 암발파 방법에 의한 오픈컷 공법으로 대체시공하였으므로, 원고가 설계상의 흙막이공사까지 마친 것으로 보아야 한다. 이에 의하여 원고의 공사 중단 당시 기성고는 53.44%이고 기성공사대금은 2,527,734,990원이다.

2) 한편, 암발파 방법에 의한 오픈컷 공법으로 대체시공함에 따라 사토운반비를 포함하여 1,120,278,797원(= 원심 감정에 의한 추가공사대금 807,708,632원 + 원심 감정에서 누락된 사토운반비 312,570,165원)의 추가공사대금이 발생하였다.

3) In addition, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff did construction work such as installation of temporary EGI fences, installation of temporary power facilities, installation of restaurant basic concrete facilities, landscaping support, installation of three-wheeled tea facilities, installation of tree waste disposal facilities, installation of temporary offices, increase or decrease in the sales volume and removal of fences. The additional construction cost resulting therefrom is KRW 152,90,000 (specific construction cost is considered to be followed).

4) In addition, for the appraisal of Nonparty 2’s height, etc. of Nonparty 2 of the lower judgment’s appraiser Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff agreed to remove 100,000 cubic meters of earth and sand located at the instant construction site from outside, and the Defendant borne the cost of removal (hereinafter “instant soil and sand removal agreement”), and accordingly, the Plaintiff removed the said earth and sand, and the cost of removal is KRW 165,60,000.

5) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 2,393,90,578 (= KRW 2,527,734,90 + KRW 1,120,278,797 + KRW 152,90,00 + KRW 165,60,000 + KRW 1,572,612,209 + KRW 258,000 in cash + KRW 322,030,00 in credit card settlement + KRW 1,144,782,209; KRW 152,20,000 in oil returned to the Defendant; KRW 322,00 in cash + KRW 322,00 in credit card settlement + KRW 1,144,782,209; KRW 152,578; KRW 3,96,00,00); KRW 16,537,207; and

B. Defendant’s assertion

원, 피고가 이 사건 공사 중 가시설공사를 암발파 방법에 의한 오픈컷 공법으로 대체시공하기로 합의한 적이 없으므로, 원고가 설계상의 흙막이공사까지 하였다고 볼 수는 없다. 따라서, 원고가 이 사건 공사를 중단할 당시의 기성고는 33.3%에 불과하다. 한편, 원고와 원고 주장의 추가공사에 관한 약정을 한 적도 없다.

3. Determination

A. The amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost;

1) Whether an alternative construction agreement exists, etc.

가) 원, 피고가 이 사건 공사 중 가시설공사를 암발파 방법에 의한 오픈컷 공법으로 대체시공하기로 합의(아마도 원고가 흙막이공사를 하지 않음에도 불구하고 피고가 적어도 이 사건 도급계약에서 정한 약정공사대금을 그대로 지급한다는 취지의 합의를 뜻한다고 보인다)하였는지에 관하여 보건대, 이에 부합하는 듯한 갑 제57호증의 일부 기재와 당심 증인 소외 3의 일부 증언은 선뜻 믿기 어렵고, 앞서 인정한 사실들에 의하여 알 수 있는 원고가 이 사건 공사를 중단할 당시 적어도 A, B동의 경우 그 벽면 부분이 보통암, 경암이 노출되어 있는 등 마치 암발파 방법에 의한 오픈컷 공사가 이루어진 것과 유사한 외관을 띄고 있고, 이에 따라 굳이 흙막이공사를 하지 않아도 되는 상태라는 사정만으로 원고 주장과 같은 대체시공 합의가 있었다고 인정하기에 부족하며 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없을 뿐만 아니라, 오히려 앞서 든 증거들 및 을 제52호증, 을 제53호증의1의 각 기재와 당심 증인 소외 4의 증언에 의하여 알 수 있는, 이 사건 공사 현장의 지반상태가 오류 없이 이 사건 공사에 관한 설계에 반영된 점, 원고 주장과 같은 대체시공에 따른 설계변경이 이루어진 적이 없고, 원고가 피고나 감리단에게 그 설계변경을 요구한 적도 없으며, 이 사건 공사에 관한 공사일보에도 이에 관한 기재가 전혀 없는 점, 피고가 원고 주장과 같은 대체시공 합의를 할 합리적인 이유를 찾기도 어려운 점(위 대체시공으로 인하여 원고가 이 사건 도급계약상 가시설공사에 책정된 공사대금액 정도를 지출하게 된다는 등의 사정이 있어야 피고가 그러한 합의를 할 터인데, 실제 원고는 이 사건 도급계약상 가시설공사 중 터파기공사에 책정된 공사대금액 정도만을 지출한 것으로 보일 뿐인바, 이러한 상황에서 피고가 원고 주장과 같은 대체시공 합의를 할 리 없을 것이다) 등 제반 사정을 종합하여 보면, 원, 피고는 명시적으로는 물론이고 묵시적으로라도 원고 주장과 같은 대체시공 합의를 하지 않았다고 봄이 경험칙에 부합한다.

B) Therefore, without any need to examine the Plaintiff’s assertion on the additional construction cost premised on an agreement on substitute construction as alleged by the Plaintiff.

2) The cost of the construction work of the machinery and equipment at the time of discontinuance of the instant construction work

As long as it is not possible to recognize the agreement on substitute construction as alleged by the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the soil removal work was not conducted at the time of the discontinuance of the instant construction work. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the existing rate of height height is 33.3%, and that the cost of the construction work is 1.5 billion won (=4.73 billion won x 3.3%).

3) Additional construction costs not included in the instant contract

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of Article 3. 3. A. 2 (b) of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4) Expenses for the transportation of soil and sand under the agreement on the removal of earth and sand in the instant case

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of Section 3. A. 3. (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

5) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost under the instant contract, etc. is KRW 1,608,347,221 (i.e., KRW 1.57,509 million + KRW 33,257,221).

B. The defendant's reimbursement

1) The amount of money that the plaintiff is the person

As the construction cost of this case, the Plaintiff received KRW 258 million from the Defendant, ② used KRW 3220,000 by credit card received from the Defendant, ③ received oil equivalent to KRW 1,144,782,209 from the gas station operated by the Defendant without compensation, but thereafter received demand from the Defendant.

Since the Defendant paid KRW 150 million to the Defendant, the sum of KRW 1,572,612,209, which was ultimately received from the Defendant, is the sum of KRW 1,572,612,209 (i.e., KRW 258 million + KRW 322,2030,000 + KRW 1,144,782,209 - KRW 152,2200).

2) The legitimacy of the above assertion that the Plaintiff returned KRW 152 million to the Defendant

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of Article 3.2(b)(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is citing this as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3) Sub-decisions

According to the above facts, at least KRW 1,572,612,209, at least the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as the construction price of this case, is KRW 1,672,712,209,000 (i.e., the amount calculated by deducting the Plaintiff’s return from the above KRW 152,220,000,000,000,000,000,000 which was not accepted by the Plaintiff’s order of return, and the amount exceeds KRW 1,60,000,000 (= KRW 1,572,612,209 + 1,100,000) of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price of this case. Thus, it is clear that the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the construction price of this case was fully paid without examining the remainder of the Defendant’s claim for payment. The Defendant’s assertion pointing this out

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)