logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.22 2015가단70592
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with C to the period of construction from August 28, 2006 to November 28, 2006, with respect to the Bridge remodeling work contracted by the Defendant in Gunsan-si D (the supply price of KRW 460,000,000,000) and the period of construction from August 28, 2006, and executed the instant remodeling work by December 28, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 506,00,000 from C as the principal construction cost. The Plaintiff received KRW 60,000,000 from the Defendant as the additional construction cost, and received KRW 50,000,000 in total from the Defendant on February 16, 2007, and KRW 10,000 on November 10, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, or described in Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction project by inserting the costs of KRW 702,350,000. As such, the Plaintiff’s additional construction cost of KRW 196,350,000 ( KRW 702,350,500-506,000) calculated by subtracting the construction cost of KRW 506,00 from the construction cost of KRW 196,350,000 constitutes the additional construction cost. The additional construction cost of KRW 702,350,000 was promised to settle the actual cost of the Plaintiff by directly

However, the defendant paid only KRW 60,00,000 out of KRW 196,350,000 as additional construction cost, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 136,350,00 ( KRW 196,350,000-60,000). Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the balance of the additional construction cost and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant did not have agreed to place an order for an additional construction work directly to the Plaintiff or to settle the additional construction cost according to the actual cost invested at the time of the completion of construction work. However, on February 14, 2007, upon the Plaintiff’s repeated request, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 70,000,000 out of the amount requested by the Plaintiff as the additional construction cost, but the Defendant finally decided to settle the amount of KRW 60,000,000 around November 10, 2007 and completed all the amount of KRW 60,000 until November 10, 2007.

arrow