logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2016.10.26 2016나1194
공사대금
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 12, 2012, Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”) received the supply price of KRW 781,602,150 (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 710,547,409, value-added tax of KRW 71,504,741,741) from the Korea Southern Power Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Southern Power Development”) for the electrical construction of the integrated office type 1 and 2 intermodal integrated work (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On October 15, 2012, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction work to the Plaintiff, and the subcontracted construction cost was set at an amount equivalent to 75% of the amount obtained by deducting value-added tax, four major insurance premiums, and mutual-aid insurance premiums from the original contract amount.

C. Meanwhile, the construction price of the instant construction project was modified to KRW 1,209,782,412 on July 16, 2014, and KRW 1,620,418,281 on December 4, 2014 (i.e., value of KRW 1,473,107,529 value-added tax of KRW 147,310,752 (hereinafter “the second modified contract”) and KRW 1,761,309,677 on March 27, 2015 (hereinafter “third modified contract”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserted as the Plaintiff completed the instant subcontract, the Defendant shall pay only KRW 1,151,228,858 for the subcontract price to the Plaintiff [1,761,309,67 for the instant contract for the third modification - value-added tax - KRW 160,119,061 - KRW 66,218,80 for four premiums and retirement pension premium x 75%]. The Defendant shall pay only KRW 956,305,513 for the remainder of the construction price, KRW 194,923,345 for the benefit of delay.

B. In full view of the purport of evidence No. 7’s written evidence, the Plaintiff’s assessment based on the second modified contract that was conducted on December 16, 2014 (from August 1, 2014 to November 30, 2014) was based on the results of the examination conducted on December 21, 2014.

arrow