logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.11.14 2017나310973
공사대금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2016, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a supply of construction cost of KRW 90,000,000 for the construction cost (excluding value-added tax) from the Defendant for the extended design and extension of the building located in the Northern-gu, Northern-si, and the interior tennis, and the extension of the second floor restaurant (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 80 million from the Defendant as the construction price of the instant construction project up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The scope of the construction of the instant case that the Plaintiff claimed from the Defendant was contracted by the Defendant is as shown in the attached Table 1.

In addition, at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has carried out various construction works equivalent to KRW 48,086,363 (excluding value-added tax) as shown in attached Table 2.

However, according to the appraisal result, since the additional construction cost is a total of 38,502,667 won (including value-added tax), the sum of the construction cost of the instant construction project and the said additional construction cost and each value-added tax to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 137,502,667 (= KRW 90,000,000,000 KRW 38,502,667) and among them, KRW 80,000,000 already received from the Defendant is deducted from the amount of KRW 57,502,667.

B. The part claimed by the Plaintiff as additional construction is not an additional construction, but most of the original construction works that the Defendant contracted to the Plaintiff, and some of the defective parts are reconstruction or repair of the defective parts.

Rather, the Plaintiff had not completed the instant construction even until now (the entrance door of the shower room, shower room room room, shower room room room, the first floor door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door

arrow