beta
Text
1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the money which orders the payment below.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a trade name “F” and the Defendant is a person who runs a business under the trade name “G”.
B. On April 9, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for D’s construction amount of KRW 219,00,000 (Additional Tax No. 200) from the Lao Corer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Maerer”).
C. On the other hand, around March 2012, the Defendant submitted a written estimate of KRW 37,485,000 to the Plaintiff regarding the “Establishment of Cleanom” (hereinafter “instant construction”) during the said construction work, and completed the instant construction work upon entering into a subcontract with the Plaintiff on April 2012 from May 1 to May 5, 2012.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff received the direction from the Corercian to change the location of reinforcement lines installed in the Clean Room, and requested the Defendant to supplement the instant construction work, including changing the location of two locations installed in the Clean Room by the Defendant, and the Defendant completed the supplementary construction required by the Plaintiff around June 2012.
On August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the instant construction cost as KRW 30,780,00 (Additional Tax Table) and drafted a construction contract as of April 12, 2012. On August 3, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant out of the instant construction cost.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 11-3 through 5, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as to the Defendant from May 4, 2013 to August 222, 2014, which is clearly indicated in the record that the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as to the Plaintiff’s payment of construction cost amounting to KRW 18,858,000 (including additional tax) to the Defendant, and KRW 15,000,000, as requested by the Defendant.