beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 90,816,00 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for KRW 90,816,00 and its amount from March 8, 2015 to November 10, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant and the Gyeonggi-do, by setting the construction cost of KRW 880,200,00 (including value-added tax of KRW 65,200,00) and the construction period (date of completion) as six months from the date of the contract.
B. Around August 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant added part of the construction work to KRW 889,596,000, and changed the construction period (date of completion) into November 27, 2014.
C. On November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction and obtained approval for the use of the instant building on or around December 11, 2014. On December 29, 2014, the Defendant completed registration for the preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant on the instant building.
With respect to the occurrence of a large number of defects in the instant building on January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to complete the primary repair works until January 24, 2015, by February 7, 2015, by February 7, 2015, by March 31, 2015, and by March 260,816,000 in the balance of the construction cost, by January 12, 2015, by 140,000,000,000 won until February 16, 2015 (7 days after the completion of the secondary repair works), and by April 7, 2015 (7 days after the completion of the third repair works), the remainder of 20,816,000,000 won until March 31, 201, and delay in the payment of the remuneration due to the agreement for delay in the payment (i.e., the number of the next repair works).
E. On January 13, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff according to the above agreement, and on February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 70,000,000 out of the secondary payment of KRW 140,000,000 to the Plaintiff by February 13, 2015.
F. On February 24, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the columns of the instant building were 20cm compared to the design, and that there was a significant defect, such as being installed within about 20cm.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 48, and the purport of the whole pleadings.