beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,751,873 as well as 6% per annum from March 14, 2018 to January 22, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff, engaged in the construction business, etc., was awarded a contract for the construction period of the Chang-gu D ground medical care center building (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, who is engaged in the construction business, etc., as KRW 115,50,000 (including value-added tax) during the construction period from March 2, 2016 to April 30, 2016.
B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction. From March 2, 2016 to July 21, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 93,500,000 out of the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (if available, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant during the instant construction works to execute the additional construction works in KRW 20,900,000, and agreed to increase the construction cost of this case in KRW 136,400,000. The Plaintiff completed all the instant construction works and additional construction works. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of this case and the damages for delay. 2) The Defendant’s assertion 1 did not have agreed with the Defendant regarding the additional construction works.
② At the time of the instant construction contract, even though the Plaintiff agreed to use a low unit price in energy-saving glass to minimize the moving of metal or metal acids into a lust glass surface at the time of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff constructed the instant building using a lower general glass. As such, the Defendant did not obtain construction permission from the competent authority, which requested another company to re-construction, and obtained approval for use on September 2, 2016 after reconstruction.
The Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from the payment for the remaining construction cost on the ground of the foregoing defect in the construction of the grounds for appeal.
③ The Plaintiff remains.