beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 86,890,098 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from June 15, 2016 to December 21, 2018.
Reasons
1. Chief;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff runs artificial fishery business in the name of “C”, and the Defendant runs the construction business in the trade name of “B (previous trade name D”).” (2) On March 2015, the Defendant awarded a contract from Nonparty Ecom Association (hereinafter “Ecom Association”) for a new construction of the Ecom Association located in “F at Changwon-si,” and ordered the Plaintiff to subcontract construction cost of KRW 240,000,000 among the above construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”).
3) However, since the Defendant paid only KRW 162,950,00 among the instant construction costs, it should pay KRW 77,050,000 for the remaining construction costs (=240,000,000 - KRW 162,950,00 for the additional construction costs) and KRW 94,808,337 for the total amount of KRW 2,331,893 for the additional construction costs, value-added tax amount of KRW 15,426,444 for the value-added tax, and KRW 171,00,013,630 for the instant construction costs. (B) The Defendant’s assertion 1) paid the unpaid construction costs of KRW 178,986,370 for the instant construction costs, and thus the construction costs are unpaid (=240,000,000 for - KRW 171,013,630).
2) Since the Plaintiff’s assertion as to liquidated damages has delayed the completion of the instant construction at least 88 days, the Plaintiff should pay the Defendant the penalty for delay amounting to KRW 21,120,00 (=240,000,000) (i/1,000) to the Defendant. 3) Since the Plaintiff did not issue a warranty bond for defects and non-construction, the Plaintiff should deduct the warranty bond amounting to KRW 7,200,000 from the construction cost, and the damages amounting to KRW 83,00,000 from the construction cost due to the failure to perform the construction works and the erroneous construction amounting to KRW 3,067,341, and the damages amounting to KRW 83,00,00 from the construction cost due to the failure to perform the construction works. Accordingly, the Defendant does not have any remainder
2. Determination:
A. The plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the construction amount of this case (the defendant's judgment on whether to include value-added tax shall include value-added tax in the construction amount of this case, and the plaintiff shall pay value-added tax separately if he issues a tax invoice.