logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.16 2016나9985
공사대금
Text

1. Of the parts concerning the principal lawsuit against the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts shall be exceeded:

Reasons

1. The plaintiff filed a principal lawsuit claiming the payment of unpaid construction cost, and the defendant filed a counterclaim claiming the return of unjust enrichment of money corresponding to non-taxable part of damages in lieu of defect repair and value-added tax, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing part of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant appealed against the part of the original judgment of the first instance against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, but subsequently withdrawn an appeal against the counterclaim, the part of the claim for the counterclaim shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of the first instance.

2. The reasons why this court should explain this part of the facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff completed the instant construction project in accordance with the instant construction contract, and upon the Defendant’s request, an additional construction work equivalent to KRW 17,744,117 with the content of the instant construction project and the 17,744,117, including the 1 and 2nd additional construction of the instant building, the 1 and 2nd reinforcement floor construction of the instant building, and the 1 and 2nd unit 1 and the 1

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed the remainder due to the instant construction and the instant additional construction as KRW 158,400,000. Of them, the Defendant paid only KRW 150,200,000.

In addition, the total value-added tax estimated by the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time was KRW 11,00,000, but the Plaintiff actually reported and paid KRW 20,305,000 as value-added tax.

3) Therefore, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 17,505,00 ( KRW 158,400,000 ( KRW 150,200,000) for the construction work in this case and the additional construction work in this case, and KRW 17,505,00 ( KRW 11,00,000) for the construction work in this case and the additional construction work in addition to KRW 15,249,117 for the construction work in this case.

arrow