logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.09 2014가합63387
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant paid KRW 214,399,99 to the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 6% per annum from December 31, 2013 to May 2, 2014.

Reasons

A. As indicated below, the cost of the creative frame construction under the instant subcontract compared to the total cost of KRW 55,854,900 in total, and the cost of the creative frame construction under the instant subcontract is increased by KRW 14,260,300 in total, compared to the cost of the construction works under the instant subcontract modification contract, and there is only a fact that the additional construction cost has been incurred.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is not accepted.

순번 명칭 규격 변경 전 변경 후 수량 공사비(원) 수량 공사비(원) 1 Pw-01 4000*4000 3 4,689,000 3 4,689,000 2 Pw-02 900*2400 17 2,794,800 22 3,616,800 3 Pw-03 2000*2000 7 3,018,400 7 3,018,400 4 Pw-04 1500*2200 9 3,663,000 9 3,663,000 5 Pw-05 3000*2200 23 17,730,700 2 1,541,800 6 Pw-06 5100*2200 5 5,115,000 6 6,138,000 7 Pw-07 1400*2400 9 3,204,000 9 3,204,000 8 Pw-08 1200*1200 7 1,207,500 7 1,207,500 9 Pw-09 9800*1400 1 1,501,000 1 1,501,000 10 Pw-10 1800*400 6 822,000 6 822,000 11 Pw-11 18200*1400 1 2,788,300 1 2,788,300 12 Pw-12 900*900 2 275,000 4 550,000 13 Pw-13 3000*2200 2 2,198,000 23 25,277,000 14 Pw-14 5100*2200 2 2,849,000 2 2,849,000 15 Pw-15 900*2600 8 1,424,000 8 1,424,000 16 Pw-16 2800*500 1 92,000 1 92,000 17 Pw-17 1400*1400 1 185,000 1 185,000 18 Pw-18 4200*1400 3 1,982,700 3 1,982,700 19 Pw-19 1200*2400 1 306,500 3 919,500 20 Pw-20 4300*2250 0 0 1 1,247,860 21 Pw-21 6450*2100 0 0 1 1,225,130 22 Pw-22 4170*800 0 0 1 494,820 23 Pw-23 4300*800 0 0 1 599,200 24 Pw-24 4350*800 0 0 1 599,200 25 Pw-25 3750*800 0 0 1 479,990 합 계 108 55,845,900 124 70,115,200

B. On October 15, 2013, the case construction, which is the subcontractor for the determination of the claim for the extinguishment of the obligation for construction price under an agreement with the case construction, entered into the instant construction waiver agreement with the Defendant on October 15, 2013, and the fact that the approval for use of the instant building was completed on November 25, 2013, which was the due date for the construction completion under the instant construction waiver agreement, was completed on December 3, 2013.

However, it is possible to understand the contents of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 1, 2 as a whole.

arrow