beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,523,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 14, 2017 to May 21, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior te and F Switzerland in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. On April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction and completed the construction around June 5, 2017.
C. The Defendant paid a total of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff by June 2017, and paid KRW 1500,000 to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant agreed to settle the construction cost on the basis of the actual cost at the time of the commencement of the instant construction work. Since the actual cost of the instant construction work is KRW 15,6750,000 (excluding value-added tax), the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 15750,000,000 (= KRW 1977,000,000,000,000, which was already paid at KRW 14,250,000 (= KRW 15,6750,000) plus value-added tax, and KRW 3,927,00,000,000 after deducting the defect repair cost of KRW 5,000,000 based on the court’s appraisal and assessment, KRW 11,150,000,000 - KRW 59,77,000,0
B. There was no agreement to settle the construction cost on the basis of the Defendant’s actual cost of assertion.
The defendant means that the first 70 million won was predicted, and the plaintiff was the same as 100 million won, but only the plaintiff was to show to the maximum of 100 million won.
The Plaintiff had the idea to pay KRW 120 million (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant, on the ground that the construction work exceeds KRW 120 million. However, the Plaintiff requested KRW 135 million (excluding value-added tax) after completion of the construction work, and the Defendant rejected it.
However, the defendant's spouse only expressed his/her intention to pay 130 million won (including value-added tax) upon completion of defective repair, but the plaintiff's assertion is unreasonable.