beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,593,180 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 30, 2017 to April 11, 2018.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 6 of the case summary, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from the Defendant to the 176 million won for construction work (including value-added tax of KRW 16 million) on June 27, 2016, and completed the subcontract to the Galley-gu Seoul Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and the Plaintiff received KRW 120 million for construction work from the Defendant until September 12, 2016.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 38.5 million (=160 million - 120 million - 150 million). The Defendant asserts that there is no payment for the construction cost after deducting the labor cost and the construction cost for the portion of the non-construction under the direct payment agreement.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff cannot again accept the Defendant’s direct payment agreement, and even if there was a direct payment agreement, there was a direct payment agreement.
Even if you claim that there remain the duty of payment equivalent to KRW 23,709,000 for the construction cost of the E.S. L. industry(ju)
It will be regarded as seeking the payment of the remainder of the construction cost after deducting the payment of the construction cost, the actual paid labor cost, etc. from the total construction cost including value added tax.
2. 판 단 ▷을 1∽13호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고, 피고, D(목수반장)와 합의 하에 피고가 2016. 9. 20.경부터 D 등에게 이 사건 공사 관련 인건비, 식대, 물품대금 등으로 32,886,820원을 직접 지급하고, 이 사건 공사계약에서 정한 옹벽공사 등 마무리 공사를 위해 602만 원을 지출한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.
▷한편, 갑 5∽7호증, 을 1호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 의하면, 지급요청내역(을 1호증)상 E 인건비 38만 원 등 39,186,500원 상당의 직불요청이 있었는데, 원고는 E 인건비 485,000원 등 합계 635만 원의 임금 미청산을 이유로 벌금 100만 원의 약식명령을 발령받았고, 그밖에도 이 사건...