beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,700,50 and KRW 13,214,00 among the Plaintiff and KRW 4,486,50 from June 3, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, setting the construction cost as KRW 38,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the date of completion as of April 2015, with respect to civil engineering works for the construction of a health room (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land outside the Gu-Si of the Gu-si and one (hereinafter “instant building”). As to the construction works of the instant building, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant by setting the construction cost as of May 30, 2015.
According to each of the above construction contracts, if the construction is delayed, the defendant should pay the amount equivalent to 1/1000 of the construction price per delay day as liquidated damages.
B. Around that time, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract for interior construction of the instant building with the Defendant.
C. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant completed civil engineering works and construction works on the instant building, and completed interior works on June 30, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 14 (including the serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the appraisal commission with respect to Party A’s video products and appraiser D’s appraisal of the remainder of the defect other than a roof discount, the building of this case can be acknowledged that there was a defect in the non-construction or erroneous construction as shown in the attached Table, and that the remuneration construction cost for such defect is KRW 13,214,00 (in total, 13,214,000). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall pay KRW 13,214,00 to the Plaintiff as compensation in lieu of defect repair. 2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the part of the roof discount, barring any special circumstance, was apportioned to the roof of the building of this case due to the Defendant’s error in construction, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,00,000 for the repair of the defect.
Modern, A.