1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 136,543,00 and 5% per annum from December 11, 2014 to September 19, 2017.

Facts of recognition

On June 2014, the Plaintiff began to construct a mushroom cultivation company (hereinafter “instant cultivation company”) on the five and a half lots on the land outside Sju City, Sju-si, and completed the construction on December 10, 2014 at the request of the Defendants.

The Defendants paid KRW 145,00,000 to the Plaintiff as the construction cost of the said cultivation company.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to set the construction cost of the instant cultivation company at KRW 277,520,000, around June 2014, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to set the construction cost of the instant cultivation company at KRW 6,887,00.

Since the Plaintiff completed the construction of the instant farming company, the Defendants should pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 139,407,00.

The Defendants, on the ground that the Plaintiff was able to suspend the cultivation of this case from KRW 170 million to KRW 180 million, and that the Defendants did not have agreed on the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.

In addition, in the process of removing existing farming houses, the Plaintiff disposed of these used machinery and appropriated them for the construction cost. One of the workers employed by Defendant B employed by Defendant B was invested in the construction work and deducted the wages from the construction cost, and the value of the goods owned by the Defendants should also be deducted from the construction cost.

In addition, even though the Plaintiff promised to complete construction until the end of the year 2014, the construction was completed on December 10, 2014, and it was difficult to grow mushroom due to the defect in the completed cultivation plant, so the amount of damages incurred by the Defendants due to such delay of construction and defective construction should also be deducted from the construction cost.

Judgment

Considering the following circumstances that are acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier prior to the payment of the agreed construction cost, the Plaintiff and the Defendants were to pay the construction cost of the instant farmer.