beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.
Reasons
J On October 17, 2014, the Defendant issued a tax invoice on the total amount of the construction price of the instant J as the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff on October 17, 2014, according to the following purport: (a) the fact that the Plaintiff subcontracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff on October 15, 200,00 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from October 20, 2014 to April 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff issued a warranty bond against the guarantee creditor on September 7, 2015; and (c) according to the fact that the Plaintiff was issued a warranty bond against the Plaintiff on September 7, 2015, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the J price to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is a person who received the payment of KRW 95,00,000 from the Defendant as the payment of the construction cost. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the payment of KRW 60,000,000, and the delay damages therefrom, which shall not be paid to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant’s assertion as to the deduction of the construction cost (construction) was that the liquid waterproof construction and cooking construction among the two-story toilets was not carried out, and that the damage was incurred to the Defendant in total of KRW 10,709,82 (including value-added tax) due to the failure to carry out the waterproof mining waterproof and waterproofing construction during the waterproof construction work, and as the waterproof construction was not carried out, the said money should be deducted from the construction cost.
Judgment
As seen earlier, the Plaintiff completed all of the instant J works, and a part of the construction works was not performed as claimed by the Defendant.
there is no evidence to acknowledge that such damage was caused to the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
. Warranty bond;