logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
수원지방법원안양지원 2017.08.25 2016가단6413
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”) with the content that: (a) the light capacity construction works among the instant construction works, including the Defendant, the contractor, the Plaintiff, the work price of KRW 56,595,00 (the additional tax of KRW 51,450,000, the supply price of KRW 51,450,000), and the construction period from July 1, 2015 to November 30, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”).

B. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 87,186,000 (the supply price of KRW 79,260,000, KRW 7,926,000) as the construction price for the instant construction work six times from August 20, 2015 to February 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion and the Defendant agreed to proceed with additional construction works other than the construction work under the instant construction contract. After the Defendant agreed to do so by a direct management method based on personnel expenses, the Defendant completed the construction, but the Defendant paid only KRW 79,260,000 out of the total construction cost of KRW 131,65,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 52,405,00 and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

B. As to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to undertake additional construction works, other than the construction works under the instant construction contract, the health room and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge such agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to carry out the additional construction directly is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.