beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 1,900,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from September 8, 2016 to August 18, 2017.
Reasons
Basic Facts
- On February 25, 2015, the Defendant subcontracted the Plaintiff the instant construction cost of KRW 121,00,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period of February 1, 2015 through August 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff, among the GG IBS works in Gangseo-si, the telephone terminal construction, integrated distribution, the CATV construction, the CATV construction, the CCTV access control construction, the CCTV access and exit (hereinafter “instant construction”).
(hereinafter “instant contract”). - The Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and the Defendant paid KRW 121,00,000 to the Plaintiff by September 10, 2015.
[Ground] The plaintiff's claim as to the main claim of the entire purport of the pleading is without dispute. Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the summary of the plaintiff's claim as to the main claim of the argument as to the main claim of the entire purport of the pleading. Upon the defendant's request, the plaintiff added to the plaintiff's labor costs equivalent to the construction cost of 3,867,559 won, which is equivalent to the construction cost of 1-3 stories pipes, 4,880,139 won, which is not included in the contents of the contract of the contract of this case, 700,000 won, and the installation and processing of the main sheet equivalent to the 1,200,000,000 won and CCTV connection construction, 4,450,000 won and CCTV connection construction, 24,450,000 won, and 264,200 won,26.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the total amount of the construction cost and personnel expenses, KRW 39,302,318, and delay damages.
Judgment
The 3,867,559 won and 4,880,139 won for pipes construction of the 1-3th floor above the ground and 1-3th floor above the 1-3th ground and 1-3th floor above the 1-3th ground and 4,880,139 won are not disputed between the parties, but there is no dispute between the parties that the d was to perform the above construction. However, there is evidence of Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, and 15 each because the d did not perform the above construction.