beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,353,020 as well as 6% per annum from December 31, 2014 to November 24, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, on May 28, 2014, concluded a contract with the Defendant to accept the construction cost of KRW 120,000,000 (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the manufacturing of steel structure (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the said construction work among the said construction works, on the premise of the premise that the Defendant was awarded a contract for “the incineration of the disposal facilities of domestic wastes in the Hanan River,” and “the boiler steel framed construction,” and the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to accept the construction cost of KRW 120,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the construction cost of the instant contract into KRW 120,870,000 (excluding surtax).
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserted that the contract price is 39,725,620 won (=132,957,000 won (including additional tax) - 93,231,380 won) against the defendant.
3. First of all, we examine the cause of the claim as to whether installation of the steel structure site modification is included in the instant construction work due to the error in the tamp work and design drawings.
According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (including various numbers), Eul's testimony, and witness Eul's witness Eul's testimony and arguments, the scope of construction work under the contract of this case is the manufacturing and installation of steel frame, hand-day and stairs manufacturing and installation, singinging, printing, and tamping construction, etc., and additional construction was required due to erroneous design drawings of steel structures provided by Han new boiler, which are the main contractor, and the construction of steel structures produced and supplied by the plaintiff at the construction site after correcting the steel structures produced and supplied by the plaintiff. On July 25, 2014, the plaintiff performed the work of installing revised steel structures by July 31, 2014, including the installation of the remainder of steel structures among the defendant and the construction of this case.