beta
Text
1. An appeal against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim extended by this court.
Reasons
1. The scope of the judgment in this Court is that the Plaintiff filed a claim for construction cost as the principal claim, and the Defendant filed a claim for damages as a counterclaim. The first instance court partly accepted the principal claim, and dismissed the counterclaim claim.
Accordingly, the part of the lawsuit is excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance, and only the part of the counterclaim belongs to the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the "1. Factual relations" of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff agreed to complete the instant construction work by August 31, 2015 when concluding the instant construction contract for delay. However, the Plaintiff was required to complete the instant construction work and obtain approval for its use on October 6, 2015, which was 36 days before the date of completion of the contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 81,180,000 for delay calculated at the rate of 1/100 per day, which is the ordinary rate of liquidated damages (i.e., construction price of KRW 2,25,00,000 x 1/100 x 36 days), even though the Plaintiff agreed to issue the warranty bond to the Defendant at the intervals of issuing the warranty bond. 2)
Accordingly, the defendant decided to sell the original real estate of this case to D in KRW 2.8 billion, but incurred loss of KRW 100 million by reducing KRW 100 million out of the purchase price.
B. On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to complete the instant construction work by August 31, 2015 when concluding the instant construction contract with the Defendant on the determination of the claim for liquidated damages. However, the fact that the Plaintiff obtained the approval for use on October 6, 2015, which was 36 days after the date of completion of the agreement with the instant mother building, is the party concerned.