beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 77,501,267 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 3, 2015 to July 7, 2016.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The instant contract for the instant case is concluded
1. Name of construction: Newly built multi-household housing;
3. Period of construction: Amount of contract on November 20, 2014- May 15, 2015: KRW 722,00,000 (including purchase-added taxes and value-added taxes);
8. Advance payments: 10 million won and submission of written guarantees for advance payments;
9. Endd portion: At least once a month (as at the end of each month): 70% of the contract amount shall be paid monthly; 30% of the contract amount shall be paid within two months after completion, Article 31 (Cancellation, etc. of Contract by a plaintiff) (1) The plaintiff may cancel or terminate all or part of the contract in any of the following cases:
4. Other cases where it is deemed impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract due to the violation of the contract terms of the defendant.
On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, setting the construction period from November 20, 2014 to May 15, 2015, with respect to the new construction of multi-household housing in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) as KRW 7220 million for the construction cost (including value-added tax).
The main contents are as follows:
Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 100 million to the Defendant as advance payment on November 24, 2014 and the 50 million each on the 28th of the same month. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff paid KRW 37 billion as the construction price of the instant construction project in total five times from January 14, 2015 to June 11, 2015.
On May 2015, the Defendant’s suspension and resumption of construction requested the Plaintiff to pay the construction cost (five times) in April 2015, but the Plaintiff refused the instant construction cost on the ground that the construction cost was excessive compared to the work cost.