beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,650,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from July 6, 2016 to May 17, 2017.
Reasons
1. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with the following construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”), and around January 11, 2016, with respect to the instant construction works, the contract amount was changed to KRW 114,60,000 (the contract amount of KRW 55,00,000, the remainder of KRW 59,600,000, the remainder of the contract amount of KRW 59,600,000).
[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Whether the instant construction has been completed, the Plaintiff is seeking the payment of the construction price under the premise that the instant construction has been completed.
As to this, the defendant did not conduct a final inspection, and the plaintiff did not make a written request for a final inspection to the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the construction has been completed (Article 9(3) of the General Conditions of the Contract for Private Construction Works).
(Article 25(1) of the General Conditions for Standard Construction Contract for Private Construction Works claims to the effect.
However, if the construction project fails to complete the last process scheduled to be interrupted during the course of the construction project, it may be deemed that the construction project has not been completed. However, if the construction project is completed the last process scheduled to be completed and the main structure of the project is completed as agreed and completed under the social norms, it shall be interpreted that the construction project is completed but it is only a defect in the object. However, if the construction project is to be repaired due to an incomplete defect, it shall be interpreted that whether the construction project completed the scheduled last process is completed or not must be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the contract and the principle of good faith
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da23150 delivered on October 10, 1997). Each description of evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and No. 1, and No. 7’s pleading is made on the video of No. 4-7.