beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s face value of KRW 1,275,00 from the Plaintiff, and the defect liability period of KRW 2 years from June 19, 2014.
Reasons
1. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff’s determination on the cause of the claim was subcontracted out of the Defendant’s 6 multi-household housing in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, to KRW 85,00,00,000, which was 85,000 and completed three of the 36,440,000,000 won, and there is no dispute between the parties, and thus, the Defendant shall pay the said money to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The summary of the defense is as follows: ① 2,645,00 won with compensation for delay; ② 6,500,000 won with increased construction cost on the wind to complete the construction by re-subcontracting the construction work to other business operators; ③ 7,301,478 won with the warranty payment; and ④ The remainder of construction payment is the obligation to pay it simultaneously with the issuance of the Plaintiff’s warranty insurance policy.
B. The Defendant asserts that the construction should have been completed on June 11, 2014 when the Plaintiff commenced the construction from May 12, 2014 to June 31, 2014. As the Plaintiff delayed construction, the Defendant subcontracted the remainder of three construction works to the D Company on June 18, 2014 and completed construction on July 10, 2014, the Defendant ultimately asserts that the total of KRW 2,465,000 (0.1% of the daily contract price) shall be deducted for delay compensation for 29 days.
The plaintiff brought in materials at the construction site of this case on May 13, 2014, and the non-party D started the construction at the construction site of this case on June 18, 2014, and there is no dispute between the parties to the contract of this case on June 19, 2014.
However, since the construction has not been delayed because the defendant did not pay the construction cost at the time and the construction has not been properly performed, the plaintiff is not obligated to compensate for it.
According to Article 6 of the contract of this case (Evidence 1 of A), the defendant is 10% of the net contract amount between the plaintiff's entry of materials.