logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나350
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff runs a construction business, such as Changho Construction, in the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant runs real estate sales business, such as new construction and sale of housing, under the trade name of “D.”

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant for a construction work with the content that, with respect to the new construction (hereinafter “instant construction work”), the construction cost of KRW 70,400,00 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the construction period of construction from October 27, 2015 to November 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, the period of warranty was set at two years (free repair) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 69,000,000, totaling KRW 12,000,000 on October 28, 2015, and KRW 15,000 on November 6, 2015, and KRW 15,000 on November 23, 2015, and KRW 10,000 on December 11, 2015, and KRW 17,000,00 on December 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for the remaining construction cost under the instant contract

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 1,400,000 under the contract of this case (= contract price of KRW 70,400,000 - contract price of KRW 69,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's defense 1) The plaintiff should have executed the replacement of the exhauster 6 to 9th floor of the building of this case according to the contract of this case, but did not execute it. Thus, the defendant's defense is not asserted that there is no remainder of the construction cost to be paid to the plaintiff if the plaintiff deducts or offsets the amount of KRW 3,366,00 with the cost of replacing the exhauster 8 and the cost of constructing the exhauster 120,000 with the cost of replacing the exhauster 8, and KRW 400,000 with the cost of operating the cover 40,000 with the cost of operating the cover 350,000 with the equipment cost, and KRW 2,00,00

As to this, the plaintiff's expenses incurred in replacing the performance of an event are 80.

arrow