beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 31,450,000 to the plaintiff and its 6% per annum from January 29, 2020 to November 4, 2020.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, on November 3, 2015, awarded a contract for reconstruction works of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Library, and subcontracted the said reconstruction works to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2015, with the construction cost of KRW 51,450,00 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from November 3, 2015 to December 31, 2015.
Upon the Plaintiff’s progress of the instant stone construction, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 10 million as the construction cost on January 18, 2016, and KRW 10 million as of April 29, 2016, respectively.
On August 2016, the Plaintiff completed the subcontracted construction work as above.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the subcontractor is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the subcontractor, the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 31.455 million (=total construction cost of KRW 51.45 million-paid construction cost of KRW 20 million) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 29, 2020 to November 4, 2020, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the completion of the above stone construction work, and it is evident that the Defendant’s dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation of performance is reasonable.
(1) The plaintiff asserted that the total construction cost is KRW 53,409,50,00, not KRW 53,400,000 as the total construction cost, since some of the above construction works were implemented while the construction works were being partially modified. However, Gap's evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above additional construction work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit within the above recognition scope. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.