beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
On June 30, 2014, in relation to the new construction of multi-household housing in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Plaintiff received a subcontract for the temporary structure construction from July 1, 2014 to September 15, 2014, for the construction cost of KRW 134 million. While the Plaintiff was performing construction directly or through re-subcontract, the Plaintiff suspended the construction in order for the Defendant to pay the cost for the cryptian. The Defendant paid KRW 120,908,950 to the Plaintiff, compared to the Plaintiff’s flag amount of KRW 120,908,950,000 to the Plaintiff, and instead paid KRW 183,00,000 to the Plaintiff, KRW 7.68,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the cryp construction cost of the stairs and KRW 5,500,000,00,000.
(1) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts, on the other hand, that the Defendant’s payment of KRW 6,643,00,000 paid to the Defendant, KRW 45,350,750,00, or that the Plaintiff should receive KRW 40,20,000 for the secondary intermediate payment for the relevant process in accordance with the contract, because the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 111,780,750 was completed, or that the Plaintiff should receive KRW 4,02,00 for the relevant process in the construction executed by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not perform the repair of defects at the Defendant’s request, and on September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 53% was merely KRW 9,255,00 paid by the Defendant, while the Defendant’s payment of KRW 109,975,000,000 paid by the Defendant should be recovered.
The written evidence evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12 cannot be accepted as the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise.
In the attached cases, the Plaintiff, a contractor, has the burden of proving the completion of the construction, the existence of the completion of the construction works, and the burden of proof. On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff stated that there was no intent to apply for appraisal on the date of the second pleading, and only argued that the Defendant cannot recognize 53% of the progress rate, which is the final and high ratio recognized by the Defendant.