beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,50,000 and the following day shall be 6% per annum from May 3, 2014 to January 15, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from the Defendant to the construction work to supply and install the machinery and equipment of the golf sprink located in A (including value added tax) at KRW 79,200,000 (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
B. After that, on May 13, 2013, the original Defendant drafted a subcontract agreement with respect to the said construction cost on June 10, 2013, stating that the said construction cost shall be paid in KRW 4,455,00,000 for the intermediate payment on June 30, 2013, KRW 2,6730,000 for the intermediate payment on June 30, 2013, and the remainder after the completion of a trial run.
C. On March 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied a content tank, hot water tank, and heast on May 2013, 2013, and the finishing process rink and trial run did not appear.
The Defendant paid KRW 405 million to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2013, and KRW 10 million on September 17, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance remaining after deducting the Plaintiff’s operating cost from the accrued construction cost of KRW 27.7 million ( KRW 79.2 million - KRW 40.5 million - KRW 11 million), barring special circumstances.
Therefore, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant can find that the defendant executed the construction of the rinking industry and Taesung C&A in the aggregate of KRW 1,320,000 (including value added tax) by entrusting the rinking construction work to the rinking industry and Taesung C&A in the total of KRW 1,320,000 (including value added tax). The above recognition is insufficient to reverse the identification, and there is no counter-proof. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the rinking construction work executed by the plaintiff is required to pay the above KRW 13,20,00,000 to the above KRW 13.2 million.
B. The defendant's assertion