logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.15 2014가단5338630
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On May 16, 2014, the Defendant, a new construction contractor of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Southern District Office, subcontracted to the Plaintiff the interior works among the said new construction works, and the Plaintiff performed the interior works from March 24, 2014.

On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a contract for the said subcontract.

According to that, the construction period is up to June 30, 2014, and the contract amount is up to 1,760,000 won (including value added tax).

Since then, the construction cost was changed to KRW 2,081,024,000 (which does not include KRW 70,851,000 as claimed by the Plaintiff in this case). The Defendant paid the price to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without a dispute, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

(a) The interior construction of a newly constructed building for the plaintiff's assertion ordinary building shall remove the studios for construction, when any elevator newly installed in the building in question is operated, while using a studs (a kind of temporary elevator installed in a building in the course of construction for the transportation, loading, and unloading of building materials) installed in the building being newly constructed for the sake of total weight of materials (the transportation, loading, and unloading of building materials from the 1st floor to the upper floor of the building or underground floors).

When the Plaintiff started the tegrative construction, it was naturally installed at a new building, and the elevator was scheduled to start operation by the Defendant until April 30, 2014, but the Defendant removed the tegrative from April 29, 2014, when the elevator was not completed by that time.

The defendant completed the elevator with June 14, 2014.

For this reason, the plaintiff removes the head of the household, and completed the elevator and operated the elevator, which was without the original estimate during the period (including value added tax). 65,017,582 won (including additional human resources inputs for the transportation and loading and unloading of materials following the failure to use the head of the household or the elevator).

arrow