beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 220,664,071 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 1, 2016 to July 6, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to receive a contract from the Defendant for the interior works for C Burial (Seoul Gangseo-gu D4 E-F) planned to be operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction works”).
At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant only agreed to the extent that “the Plaintiff shall pay the adequate construction cost upon completion of the construction work,” did not consult on the general construction cost, and did not prepare a contract under the terms and conditions of the contract.
B. Around July 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate of KRW 244,00,000 for the construction cost (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant, and on August 7, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate of KRW 243,80,000 for the construction cost (excluding value-added tax).
C. The Plaintiff completed the construction work around September 2016.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 4, appraiser G’s appraisal result (hereinafter “the appraisal result of this case”), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) obtained approval for the submission of a written estimate for the construction cost after the oral contract with the Defendant on the instant construction project. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 277,200,000 (i.e., the first construction cost of KRW 244,000,000 for additional construction cost of KRW 25,200,000 for additional construction cost). Even if it is not so, according to the result of the instant appraisal, even if it is not so, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of the written estimate at least as the construction cost.
B. After the completion of Defendant 1’s construction project, there is no fact that the Plaintiff unilaterally submitted a written estimate without evidentiary data, and the appraisal of the construction cost in this case was calculated in an erroneous manner, and thus cannot be recognized.
Even if the construction cost is acknowledged according to the results of the appraisal of this case, the amount exceeding the labor cost claimed by the plaintiff shall not be recognized.