beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 2016, the Defendant was awarded by C a subcontract for a funeral construction project from the Co., Ltd. to KRW 396,000,000 (including value-added tax).
B. On August 13, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to make an estimate of the large-scale construction cost of the above swimming pool (F and G Dong) among the above swimming pool construction works, and submitted a written estimate calculated by approximately KRW 40,000,000 (the reduction in the amount of KRW 87,000) as indicated in the following table.
KRW 19,000,00 in total of the unit price (materials, construction) for the volume of name (15,000 square meters (i.e., 9,500 9,500 ) (i.e., 8,000) KRW 19,798,000 in F-dong 86.3 square meters in total (i.e., KRW 15,000 8,000) KRW 1,984,900 in G-dong W-dong 775 square meters in total (= KRW 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500) 14,725,000 in G-dong G-dong 72.6 square meters in total (=15,000 8,000) KRW 169,000 in total and KRW 1909,000 in total).
C. Thereafter, on August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s construction cost of the brickd construction in the unit price of one square meter (i.e., KRW 19,500 per indoor part (i.e., KRW 10,000, KRW 9,500; hereinafter the same shall apply), ② indoor part of KRW 29,500 (i.e., KRW 15,000) (i., KRW 14,500), ③ 22,000 on a single part (i.e., KRW 10,000), ④ 32,000 on a single part (i.e., KRW 15,00, KRW 17,000), ⑤ KRW 35,000 on an elevator (i.e., KRW 16,000, KRW 19,000), and (ii) KRW 40,000 on a total of construction cost (i.e., total estimate)., 4000.
Accordingly, on August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate to the Defendant to reduce the unit price of the material from KRW 5,000 to KRW 5,500, which was revised. However, on August 30, 2016, the Defendant sent the written estimate to the Plaintiff by e-mail, comparing the estimate of other companies (H).
E. Ultimately, under the condition that the Defendant directly pays part of the material, the Plaintiff agreed to obtain a settlement of the construction cost according to the actual quantity after the construction. From September 2016 to December 2016, the Plaintiff determined that the aforementioned factory F, G, I, J, and K consent are light construction works.