beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 7,520,00,000 as well as the full payment from November 28, 2017.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of measuring and control apparatus with the trade name of "D", and the defendant is a company that engages in the business of designing and manufacturing and constructing plants.
On October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction with the Defendant, setting the contract amount of KRW 4,730 (including additional tax, KRW 13 million, KRW 20 million, and KRW 14,300,000 after the intermediate payment flow meter), and the construction period from October 17, 2016 to December 17, 2016, and KRW 1/1,000 of the contract amount for liquidated damages.
(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The Defendant: (a) KRW 13 million on October 19, 2016; (b) KRW 5 million on February 3, 2017; and (c) KRW 7.5 million on April 5, 2017; and (d) the same month.
7. Each of the 1.1 million won paid each of the intermediate payments of KRW 20 million paid to the Plaintiff by the towing Board (= KRW 13,000,000 in total) KRW 5,00,000 in total (= KRW 7,500,000 in total) KRW 1,100,000 in total ( KRW 20,000 in total).
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The parties’ assertion on this claim is based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s claim is KRW 47.3 million of the instant construction contract price; (b) KRW 5.72 million of the additional construction cost; and (c) DNA LAOINGINGPP cost (hereinafter “SS UP cost”).
(2) The Plaintiff’s personnel in charge of the Plaintiff’s side sent an additional construction estimate to F, who is the representative director of the Defendant, on January 17, 2017, after deducting KRW 46.6 million from the Defendant’s KRW 5,520,000. In this regard, the Defendant did not conclude any additional construction agreement and claimed that the costs of SET UP, which the Plaintiff claimed, are included in the original contract, are the amount. (2) The following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff’s employees in charge of the Plaintiff’s side sent the additional construction estimate to F, who is the Defendant’s representative director, and added from F, “N”.