beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(1) On November 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) determined that the six-story area of the sixth floor of the building D located in Busan High-gu, Busan High-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) was KRW 40 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 2.1 million; and (c) the lease period from December 1, 2015 to November 30, 2020.
B. In order to operate the Center in the instant building, the Defendant: (a) around November 2015, concluded a contract with the Plaintiff, setting the construction cost of KRW 52,500,000; and (b) the construction period from December 1, 2015 to December 25, 2015.
Secondly, the Plaintiff discontinued construction from the end of December 2015 while performing the instant construction work, and the construction cost that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff by that time is KRW 23,00,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 17, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 17,600,000,00 not paid to the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,600,000 to the Plaintiff as the construction price, since the Plaintiff’s height ratio of the instant construction work up to the end of December, 2015 exceeds 80%.
Where a contractor is obliged to settle construction costs due to the rescission of a construction contract with the completion of construction work, such construction costs are based on the agreed total construction cost agreed between the parties, barring special circumstances, such as the existence of an agreement on remuneration for the part of the completed work, and thus, the amount is determined by the nature and ratio at the time of the discontinuance of the construction work by the contractor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da39769, May 24, 2013). As to the instant case, health class and the fact that the construction work in this case was suspended due to the completion of the construction work is identical to the foregoing basic fact, so the settlement of the construction in this case is difficult.