beta
Text
1. All incidental appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. Incidental appeal costs; and
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. (1) Whether there exists the obligation to pay liquidated damages (A) The Defendant agreed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to pay the penalty for delay equivalent to 1/1000 per day when the construction of the instant new construction is not completed within February 28, 2017, which is the date of completion of the instant contract. The Defendant failed to complete the construction by February 28, 2017, which is the date of completion of each of the instant contract, and suspended the construction from April 2017. The Plaintiff continued the new construction of the instant case through G, and completed the new construction of the building on October 25, 2017, as seen earlier. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff penalty for delay due to the new construction of the instant case, barring any special circumstance.
(B) On February 2017, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had no responsibility to delay the instant new construction works, as it delayed and suspended the construction cost up to KRW 335,206,639, around April 2017.
Where the construction is delayed due to a cause not attributable to the contractor, the period should be excluded from the number of delayed days, but the reason why the number of delay is not attributable to the contractor is not attributable to the contractor, which caused the occurrence of the circumstance that the contractor could not have anticipated in the construction contract, and due to such circumstance, the contractor must prove that the delay in construction was inevitable because it is impossible to implement
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60136, Nov. 25, 2005). In addition, the contractor did not pay the intermediate payment at all, and the obligor did not pay the said intermediate payment at all.