beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) around August 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for civil works and new construction of electric power resource housing.
The Defendant paid only part of the construction price to the Plaintiff, and paid 52,285,610 won not yet.
(See attached Form 1). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 52,285,610 (and damages for delay).
(2) The construction cost under the above construction contract is KRW 114,400,000, but the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 150,000,000, value of supply and KRW 15,000,000 at the Defendant’s request.
The defendant shall bear the amount equivalent to the above additional tax amount.
B. (1) Determination (1) The fact that the agreed construction cost as agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in relation to the contract is KRW 114,400,00 (including surtax) and the fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 63,250,000 to the construction cost, may be acknowledged either by dispute between the parties or by entry in the evidence No. 2-1.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff's failure to perform the construction exceeds the above 63,250,000 won by only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including additional numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about the balance of construction works is without merit.
(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion related to the value-added tax appears to the purport that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15 million according to the tax invoice that the amount of the value-added tax was unfilled.
However, the plaintiff can only claim the payment of the construction cost and the value added tax according to the actual work progress.
There is no evidence to prove that the period of payment exceeds the period of payment as seen earlier.
In addition, with respect to the legal or contractual basis under which the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15 million on the said tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not assert or prove any assertion.