beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 116,485,610 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from July 8, 2015 to December 29, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a construction project of 360,350,000 won (excluding value-added tax), and for a construction period from April 30, 2015 to June 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant construction project”), and completed the said construction project on July 4, 2015, after commencing the construction project on April 23, 2015.
B. From April 19, 2015 to June 11, 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 250 million in total among the construction cost of the instant case five times to the Plaintiff.
C. However, completed construction of this case requires a total of KRW 3,364,390 in the cost of repair because there is a defect in the difference between the roof and outer wall, such as ① distribution of multi-faced wood powder, snicking phenomenon, ② external eavesdle pentle, and interior defect, ③ the gap in the crowdfunding wall between the roof and outer wall, and KRW 33,364,390 in total.
On the other hand, the Defendant directly executed the remainder of the construction project excluding the instant construction project.
(Therefore, the defendant's argument that the plaintiff performed the above new construction works is not acceptable). [No dispute is raised, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 7-2, 3, and 4, Eul evidence No. 7-3, and Eul evidence No. 7-4, witness C, and D's testimony, the result of the witness E's on-site inspection, the result of the appraiser E's defect appraisal, and the purport of the whole argument.
2. The construction cost of the instant contract is KRW 399,850,000 (=363,50,000,000). Here, if the Plaintiff deducts the construction cost of KRW 250,000,000 and the defect repair cost of KRW 33,364,390, the Defendant’s remainder of the construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff (=399,850,000-250,000, 364,390) remains.
In light of the facts of the above recognition, the results of the above appraisal of defects and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone are not sufficient enough for the reasons attributable to the plaintiff.