beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,345,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 17, 2014 to July 21, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the second floor Lestop New Fran (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) of the building located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) to KRW 170,000,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), and the construction cost was modified to KRW 190,000 after the date of the instant construction contract.
B. From February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction project and completed it on May 201, 2014, and the Defendant currently runs a business opening the said Lestop.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 54,00,000,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 136,000,000, when the Plaintiff had been already paid the construction cost under the instant construction contract.
B. The defendant asserts that, according to an agreement with the plaintiff, the defendant must deduct the signboard price of KRW 34,50,000 from the construction cost, since the defendant directly performed the signboard construction and paid the cost of KRW 34,50,000.
Comprehensively taking account of the contents of Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 7-2, Gap evidence No. 11-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of witness D, the fact that the construction cost of a signboard at the time of changing the construction cost under the instant construction contract was increased by 10,000,000 won, considering the fact that the defendant agreed to install the signboard directly with the plaintiff and completed the installation of the signboard at his own expense, the witness E's testimony alone is insufficient to reverse, and there is no other counter-proof.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff was exempted from the installation of a signboard equivalent to KRW 10,000,000, in accordance with the above agreement, and even if so, the defendant.