beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant on May 7, 2014, and April 20, 2017, the date of the commencement of construction works, and on April 20, 2017, the date of the completion of construction works, with the construction cost of KRW 5,002,857,660 (hereinafter “instant improvement project”); and thereafter, the Plaintiff changed the total construction cost of October 20, 2016 to KRW 6,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
(2) On April 30, 2015, the Defendant completed the instant construction work for piling up stone (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among the construction works under the instant contract, and the Plaintiff paid the construction cost as to the instant construction work by May 8, 2015.
B. On August 2016, the Gyeongbuk-do’s comprehensive audit and demand for correction. Around 2016, the Gyeongbuk-do’s comprehensive audit and inspection conducted against the Plaintiff in 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination of the results of the comprehensive audit with the Plaintiff, and the Gyeongbuk-do’s comprehensive audit and inspection conducted with the Plaintiff in 2016, that the size of the landscaping area for the instant construction project is 8,797 square meters in the case of calculating the volume to the actual height on the surface according to a reasonable calculation method, and that KRW 57,770 million in the project cost was excessively executed. The Plaintiff collected KRW 557,77 million in the project cost of the instant construction project and demanded the correction of the defective construction site in accordance with the design drawing and the specification. However, on November 2016, the Gyeongbuk-do dismissed the request for reexamination based on the method of calculating the area of the construction project in question.
C. On November 24, 2016, the head of Ulsan Gun notified the Defendant of the payment of the excessive enforcement cost of KRW 557,770,000 to the Defendant. 2) The Defendant filed an administrative suit against the Ulsan Gun with the Daegu District Court seeking the revocation of the said disposition.