beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,398,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from November 27, 2015 to May 17, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for tin work (hereinafter “instant construction”) from among the new construction works for accommodation facilities located in the Eth (hereinafter “the instant telecom”).
1) Construction cost: Advance payment of KRW 181,50,000 for the terms and conditions of the payment of the construction cost: The remainder of KRW 60,000,000 after the completion of the construction work: 41,500,000 after the completion of the construction work, and the remainder of KRW 60,000: Within 30 days after the completion of the construction work: 41,50,000 for outside tin and stairs - Within 45 days from the date of request for the order - the interior tin work from August 1, 2015 to August 20, 2015
B. On July 14, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 15,100,000 to the Plaintiff as construction price for the instant construction project, including KRW 33,00,000,000 on September 4, 2015, and KRW 35,000 on September 25, 2015, and KRW 6,600,000 on November 16, 2015, and KRW 15,000 on November 24, 2015.
C. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on November 27, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination of the parties' arguments
A. 1 Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is an additional construction work as shown in the attached Table 1 at the Defendant’s request other than the instant construction work (hereinafter “additional construction”).
(2) Since the construction of this case was completed on November 27, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the additional construction cost of KRW 54,398,000 (27,998,000 for the additional construction cost of KRW 181,50,000 for the instant construction cost of KRW 180,000 for the instant construction cost of KRW 155,10,000 for the construction cost of KRW 155,00 for the construction cost of the Defendant) and the damages for delay thereof. (2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the Defendant, Gap evidence 6, and Eul evidence 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraiser F’s appraisal, it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the additional construction as described in attached Table 1, barring any special