beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
A. The Defendant concluded a construction contract on May 2019 and ordered C construction works to the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff completed the construction project from June 10, 2019 to August 20, 2019.
2) After completion, the Plaintiff prepared a “detailed statement of construction work” as stated in KRW 94,203,695 for the settlement of construction cost to the Defendant.
3) On August 28, 2019 and August 29, 2019, the Plaintiff issued a total of KRW 143 million (including value added tax) with respect to the above construction project to the Defendant, an electronic tax account statement for the sales amount of KRW 143 million (including value added tax).
The details of the Defendant’s payment of construction price in KRW 30 million, which was KRW 60 million on September 10, 2019, KRW 30 million on June 4, 2019, KRW 50 million, KRW 30 million on November 11, 2019, KRW 130 million on November 12, 2019, KRW 1330 million on November 1, 2019, KRW 4) are as follows.
[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence No. 1, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff, which caused the claim, determined the construction cost with the Defendant as KRW 15 million (including value added tax).
Appellants, the remainder of KRW 15 million, excluding KRW 90,000,000,000, which was paid, is unclear, but it appears to be the amount calculated by deducting KRW 90,500,000,000,000,000,000 for the construction cost, excluding KRW 10,550,000,000 for the value-added tax.
and claim for the payment of the delayed damages.
3. We examine whether the Plaintiff Defendant determined the construction cost as “15 million won (including value added tax)”.
First, in light of the following circumstances according to the purport of the entire theory of witness D’s testimony and change, the part related to “construction cost” in the evidence No. 4 as seen above cannot be objectively probative value.
① From the instant complaint to November 30, 2020, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works without a separate contract with the Defendant before submitting an application for resumption of pleadings.
Inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was “.”
(2) He/she shall have been in charge of preparation of evidence No. 4.