logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.06.29 2014가합9006
공사대금
Text

1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C: (a) KRW 52,940,313 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from December 3, 2014 to June 29, 2016.

Reasons

.The construction cost of bricks up to three floors shall be included in the base value.

In light of that, among the instant contract for construction work, the agreed construction cost for the stuffing construction work among the fluoring construction works B is KRW 21,072,00,00 (i.e., KRW 35,120 x KRW 600 x 600), labor cost for the fluoring up to KRW 12,080,00,000, and based on this, the fluoring construction cost for up to the third floor of B, as described below, is the total construction cost for the 29,895,165.

However, it did not conclude the Plaintiffs’ snow work. However, it is reasonable to consider the Defendants’ claims for damages.

Although the net construction cost perfuncient is 15,804,00 of direct material cost 15,804,00 [Small Limit] 15,804,000 direct labor cost 9,060,000 [Small Limit] 9,060,000 labor cost 326,160 labor cost * 3.60% of the employment insurance premium perfuncient 71,574 * 0.79% of health insurance premium 0.79% of 0.675,594 * 2.49% of the total construction premium * 2.75% of the total construction premium * 97% of the above 97% of the total construction cost perfuncient 97% of the above 97% of the total construction premium * 201,94,560% of the total construction cost * 40% of the total construction cost perfuncient 297.36% of the above general management cost

2) The construction cost of the part executed by the Plaintiff is KRW A230,254,374 (=as a result of appraisal, 228,395.

arrow