beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 121,510,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 11, 2019 to March 11, 2020; and
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to enter into a construction subcontract agreement with the construction cost of KRW 417,00,000 (in addition tax separate) and the construction period from November 4, 2016 to February 15, 2017, with respect to the construction cost for the interior and exterior finishing works (including damp, drying, windows, glass, etc.; hereinafter “instant construction”) among the new construction works for multi-family housing C in Nam-si, Namyang-si, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the construction cost of KRW 417,00,000 (in addition tax separate) and the construction cost of KRW 417,00,000 (in relation to the warranty liability, the defect warranty bond rate shall be 3%, but 3% of the construction
B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and received KRW 67,00,000 from the Defendant as the construction cost, and received KRW 184,590,000 from the owner D, E, etc.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 165,410,00 (=417,00,000-67,000,000,000-184,590,000) and damages for delay, barring any particular circumstances.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant's assertion on the direct payment of subcontract price is that the plaintiff, the defendant, and the owner D, who are the owner, agree to pay the subcontract price directly to the plaintiff who is the subcontractor. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant's obligation to pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff is extinguished within its scope pursuant to Article 14 (2) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and thus, the defendant does not bear any obligation to pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff. Therefore, since the entries in the certificate No. 2 are insufficient to recognize the direct payment of subcontract price between D, the plaintiff, and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support it, the defendant's argument on the reduction is without merit. 2) The defendant's assertion on the reduction, with the consent of the plaintiff, that the owner D is 30 million won,00,00