beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,700,000 as well as 6% per annum from July 16, 2013 to February 19, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 28, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the outside repair work of the building building in Chungcheong-gun C (hereinafter “instant construction”) and for the payment of construction cost of KRW 27,00,000 and value-added tax of KRW 2,700,000 from the Defendant, and completed the said construction work on or around July 15, 2013. The fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 7,00,000 to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2013, and KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff is recognized by taking full account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number) (including the land number).
2. According to the above facts, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 12,700,000 (=27,000,000 - KRW 17,000,000) and damages for delay.
The defendant asserts that there is no construction cost any more than 15,861,700 won for the part of the construction performed by the plaintiff due to the existence of the plaintiff's defective construction and non-construction. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the construction cost only by the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the paper number). The defendant's assertion is without merit because there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff entered into an additional construction contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 5,00,00 (a separate payment of KRW 500,000) and KRW 1,690,000 (a separate payment of value-added tax of KRW 169,00) on two occasions. Since the above additional construction contract was implemented, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 7,359,000 in total of the above additional construction cost and value-added tax to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff entered into an additional construction contract with the Defendant on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the additional number).
It is not sufficient to recognize that an additional construction work equivalent to the above amount has been performed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant shall pay the remaining construction cost to the plaintiff 12,700.