logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.13 2014가단50885
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,259,337 as well as 5% per annum from December 27, 2014 to January 13, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for repair works for a building (Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry) (hereinafter referred to as “main construction”) to KRW 784,717,80 (including value-added tax) and was performing construction works on August 30, 2014 on or before the scheduled completion date of works. On or before August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the main construction and additional construction works pursuant to the contract, at the Defendant’s request, for the cost of KRW 48,730,00 (including value-added tax).

B. The defendant was fully paid the principal construction cost from the plaintiff, but did not receive the additional construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the obligation to pay the additional construction cost, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 48,730,000 for the additional construction cost, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant’s defense and the Plaintiff’s assertion are the cost of KRW 47,882,787 due to the existence of any defect, such as the change of the location and the defect in the main construction of this case and the additional construction of this case, and the defect repair cost. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s defense and the additional construction are separate from the additional construction cost and the main construction cost, and the defect in this construction is processed by the method of imposing liability on the construction mutual aid association for the defect repair liability. As such, offset against the damage liability equivalent to the cost of defect repair in this case by the cost of defect repair is unfair, and the alteration of the location is not deemed to have been made under the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it is difficult to recognize the existence of some defects claimed by the Plaintiff. 2) The purport of each of the statements and all of the arguments as well as the entire arguments in the relation to the additional construction and the additional construction.

arrow