beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,160,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 20, 2016 to February 2, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of the interior works of KRW 159,060,000 for the construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).
B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and the Defendant paid KRW 80,000,000 out of the construction price.
C. In addition, in addition to the construction work under the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff executed the instant additional construction work of KRW 2,00,000 for the lighting of the second floor warehouse and the construction work amount of KRW 1,100,000 for the second floor of the above store (hereinafter “instant additional construction”). The Defendant paid only KRW 2,00,000 for the above warehouse lighting work to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 80,160,000 won [159,060,000 won (159,000 won - 80,000 won) due under the instant construction contract] and the additional construction cost of this case 1,100,000 won following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint from September 20, 2016 to February 2, 2017, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment.
B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot pay the instant construction and the additional construction cost before removing 6 pipes installed in a tent during the instant construction work (a considerable of 5m in length and 65kg in weight). However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff is obligated to remove each pipe. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so ordered as per Disposition.