beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims expanded and reduced in this court, shall be modified as follows:
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the basic fact is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the unpaid construction cost, additional and modified construction cost, etc.
A. The plaintiff's main purport of the plaintiff's assertion was not only completed the construction of this case, but also added and changed according to the design change and the defendant's instruction.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 225,062,650, additional and modified construction cost, KRW 110,307,111, additional and modified construction cost, and KRW 36,181,483, which occurred due to delay in construction work period.
B. According to the above facts finding as to the claim for the unpaid construction cost, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 225,062,650 (=2,446,400,000 - 2,221,337,350) and the delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstance.
C. 1) Determination as to the claim for additional and modified construction cost, i.e., the occurrence of the obligation to pay the additional and modified construction cost, and whether to enter into an agreement for the payment of the modified construction cost, i.e., “when the contents of the design do not coincide with the state of the construction site or are unclear, omitted, or erroneous, or when the installation of additional facilities is required due to the modification of the project plan, etc., the design shall be modified, and the contract amount shall be adjusted when there is an increase or a decrease in the construction cost,” and Article 20(3) of the General Conditions of the instant Construction Contract provides that “The construction cost shall be increased and paid for the volume of the additional construction work executed by the Plaintiff under the direction of the Defendant.” In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are due to the design change