beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 281,264,040 for the Plaintiff and the following: 6% per annum from November 10, 2016 to May 16, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff constituted a joint supply and demand company with East U&S Co., Ltd., Ltd., and received a payment for the construction cost of KRW 13,505,560,000, and the construction period of KRW 13,505,560,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant.
B. Since the completion date of the instant construction, the final change was made on May 31, 2016 (275).
C. After completing the instant construction work on May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the adjustment of the contract amount of additional construction expenses, etc. due to extension of the construction period to the Defendant on June 16, 2016, but the Defendant rejected it on June 22, 2016.
The provisions related to this case among the general conditions of the construction contract incorporated into the instant construction contract (the established rules of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance) are as shown in the attached Form.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The Plaintiff Corporation had a duty to pay KRW 92,094,484 of the additional construction cost due to the extension of the construction period from August 30, 2015 to May 31, 2016, without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 92,094,484 of the additional construction cost due to the change from “12 months or less” to “18 months or less” to “18 months or 24 months of the additional construction cost,” since the extension of the construction period of this case was attributable to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant’s claim for the additional construction cost, etc. was unjust.
② On June 16, 2016, after the completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of construction cost without reservation against the Defendant. Then, seeking an additional indirect construction cost again goes against the principle of good faith and good faith or the principle of noporacy.
③ Under Article 1.7(7) of the construction specifications of the instant case, the responsibility for the supply of and demand for private materials is for the Plaintiff, and the construction contract is for the Plaintiff.