beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,829,200 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 10, 2015 to July 15, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, on May 1, 2014, operated an apartment interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration work (hereinafter “ apartment interior decoration work”).
(2) On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction amounting to KRW 30,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and by June 30, 2014. (2) The Plaintiff concluded the said construction around June 30, 2014.
The Defendant, on July 5, 2014, remitted total of KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and paid KRW 10,000,000 on July 15, 2014. However, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 13,00,000 out of total construction cost, including value-added tax, due to disputes over defects, etc.
3) Meanwhile, in relation to the foregoing interior works, any defect, such as defect in the interior of a ward, occurred. The details of the defect are as indicated in the separate sheet, and the total cost of defect repair was calculated at KRW 6,080,80 (in relation to the appraisal which was derived by reflecting the allegations as to the existence of the defect in both sides, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not make any assertion even after being notified of the result. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not dispute the result of appraisal, and there is no separate determination as to the assertion by both parties related to the defect that was made before the appraisal). (B) On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the removal of D3 floors 2, 3, and 4, and the interior works (hereinafter referred to as the “floor removal works”) up to the construction amount of KRW 75,30,00,00 (per household household 25,100,000 x 3,00 value-added tax, and 30,014.
2) The Plaintiff commenced construction on July 7, 2014. From September 23, 2014 to September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff suspended the construction work on a temporary basis without starting the construction work as a dispute arising between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, while working for a total of up to 4 to 5 days, and completing approximately 90% of the removal works, such as removal of astronomicus and windows, garbage and waste collection, etc.