beta
Text
1. The Defendant paid KRW 4,914,527 to the Plaintiff KRW 6% per annum from November 5, 2015 to June 23, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 4, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a contract with Nonparty D to set the construction cost of the Gangnam-gu Seoul E apartment, 102 Dong 1202 (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 38,00,000 with the name of “C”; and (b) completed the instant construction work on June 30, 2015, with Nonparty D’s agent’s KRW 38,000.
B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 15,000,000 as the construction cost.
C. The Defendant spent KRW 17,549,000 at the cost of furniture and furnitures included in the instant construction cost.
[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1 to No. 2-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. (1) According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 5,451,00 ( KRW 38,000,000 - KRW 15,000,000 - KRW 17,549,000) and the delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.
(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the additional cost incurred during the instant construction work after the completion of the construction work. Since the additional construction cost is KRW 2,690,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said additional construction cost to the Plaintiff.
According to the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant can recognize the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to undertake the additional expenses due to the change by mutual agreement. Thus, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff added the additional construction work, and that the defendant agreed to settle the additional construction cost at KRW 2,690,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the additional construction cost is without merit.
B. The defendant's defense was judged by the court below, since there was a defect in the bathing room and the bathing room inside the bathing room among the construction works of this case done by the plaintiff, 536,473 won as the cost of defect repair is assessed against the construction cost.