beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance judgment, including a claim extended and reduced in the trial, and a claim changed in exchange for the claim.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in construction business, etc. under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant was awarded a contract from the Defendant for “part of the fairness” among “Seoul Middle School Teachers Construction Corporation located in Gangseo-gu, Busan” (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant was awarded a contract with “part of the fairness” from “D” (hereinafter “D”), thereby subcontracting it to the Plaintiff en bloc.
B. 1) On December 23, 2015, the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education entered into a contract between the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education and D with each of the contracting parties to a contract for construction work, the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education set the contract amount of “the construction work of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the above middle school” as the contract amount of KRW 8,343,964,00, and the construction period from December 24, 2015 to February 15, 2017 (the above contract amount was changed after
(2) On January 15, 2016, D’s subcontract between D and the Defendant subcontracted to the Defendant the instant construction of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the contract price of KRW 1,970,00,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from January 16, 2016 to October 30, 2016.
3) On February 1, 2016, the Defendant re-subcontracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff as the contract price of KRW 1,870,000,000 (including value-added tax), from February 1, 2016 to July 15, 2016, respectively, with the rate of delay allowances of KRW 0.1% per annum.
(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on July 6, 2016, summaryed the construction period of the re-subcontract of this case from July 16, 2016 to July 216, 2016, the sum of 440,919,020 1,078,889,920 115,103,420 1,634,912,360 indirect construction cost 65,087,640,640,919,020 1,078,889,920,9201,060 1,70,000,000,000 attached to the re-subcontract of this case (hereinafter “the re-subcontract of this case”).
4. The difference between the Plaintiff and G.