beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,185,40 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 7, 2014 to June 9, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the installation of a correction room as follows.
Details of a contract: Contract price for construction works to be removed at the B site and to be installed at a correction room (including before C correction room): 70,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax): The supplier from June 2, 2014 to July 15, 2014: the Plaintiff ordering person: the Defendant
B. On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the construction of the above correction room (hereinafter “instant construction”) by amending the following terms:
Contract contents: Contract price for construction works for C, on-site removal and installation of correction rooms (including installation B before C correction rooms): 9,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax): From June 2, 2014 to July 25, 2014: The supplier: The owner of the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff’s order shall obtain permission from the Plaintiff and provide the Defendant with all necessary matters for this construction and use.
C. The Plaintiff received each payment of KRW 28,00,000,000 as the construction price of the instant construction project from the Defendant, respectively, on June 3, 2014, and KRW 10,00,000 on July 1, 2014.
The instant construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated as of July 10, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff sought payment of the cost of construction based on the premise that the cost of construction in this case is 77%, and the defendant asserts that the cost of construction in this case has to be deducted from the cost of construction in excess of the cost of construction paid by the defendant since the cost of construction in this case did not reach 25%.
B. In full view of the results of appraiser D’s appraisal of evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of the fixed construction cost Gap, and the fact-finding results and the purport of the whole pleadings of this court, it is recognized that the fixed rate of construction work of this case is 67.46%.