logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.10 2015가합68006
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 92,881,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 2, 2015 to November 10, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant planned to extend the 3th floor 341.65 square meters of the previous buildings on the land of 191-3 gold-si, the Defendant owned by the Defendant, for the purpose of using it as a warehouse of the previous building (hereinafter “the first Dong factory of this case”). The second Dong factory of this case (hereinafter “the second Dong factory of this case”) on the side of the first Dong factory of this case (hereinafter “the combined factory of the 1 Dong and the 2 Dong factory of this case”). The Defendant planned to newly build the 241.15 square meters of the 241.15 square meters of the 1st and 241.15 square meters of the 2nd floor of this case (hereinafter “the factory of this case”).

B. Accordingly, on July 14, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff established for the purpose of construction and civil engineering work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the construction work for the extension of the third floor of the instant first-class factory and the construction work for the instant second-class factory (hereinafter “instant construction work”); (b) the construction cost shall be KRW 550,000,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period shall be from July 21, 2014 to October 31, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant first construction contract”).

C. After the conclusion of the first construction contract in this case, the Defendant reduced the construction cost of the instant construction to KRW 484,00,000 (including value-added tax) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. The construction period is the same as the first construction contract in this case from July 21, 2014 to October 31, 2014, and the Defendant’s conclusion of the second construction contract in this case (hereinafter “the second construction contract in this case”) submitted by the Plaintiff under the terms that the Defendant shall pay the construction cost at the Plaintiff’s request as to the completed portion once each month (hereinafter “the second construction contract in this case”). However, the Defendant also recognized the conclusion of the second construction contract in this case as to the fact of the second construction contract in this case.

D.

The first construction contract of this case and the second construction contract of this case.

arrow