beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,274,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from December 16, 2018 to December 15, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
(b)be deducted from the cost of construction;
In addition, since the plaintiff did not install the ice door in compliance with the Standards and again repaired again by the defendant, the expenses incurred thereby should be deducted from the construction cost of KRW 2.5 million.
B. As to the method of the payment of the construction cost, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant first paid KRW 80 million out of the construction cost, and that the remainder of the construction cost was paid in installments in operation after confirming the status of the ice rink, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not accepted. 2) According to the entries or images of evidence No. 2, No. 1, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 1, and No. 2 in relation to the supply of heavy and freezing equipment, the Plaintiff purchased and keeps the frozen equipment from C around June 2016, and supplied the Defendant with the freezing amount of KRW 40 million.
However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff's written estimate presented to the defendant is merely stated "the name of the goods: 40hp (20hp*2), 1, unit price: 40,000 won: 40,000 won: 40,000 won, and amount: 40,000 won: 40,000 won, and it does not state that the plaintiff would supply a new goods freezing to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff promised to supply a new goods freezing to the defendant. Thus, even if the plaintiff supplied a second freezing to the defendant, it cannot be said that the contract of this case was violated
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.
According to the evidence No. 3 as to the occurrence of 3 units rupture and the suspension of the defendant's business, the defendant's construction of the facility replacement from January 20, 2019 to January 31, 2019 is recognized as having been publicly announced, and thus, it is possible to refund the rent during that period. However, the fact alone leads to the occurrence of rupture in the lake installed by the plaintiff and the suspension of business and caused approximately KRW 15 million operating loss.