beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 15,835,50, and as to the Plaintiff, KRW 5% per annum from April 10, 2016 to April 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with Defendant B for remodeling construction work of the Seoul Northern-gu D ground housing (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from November 25, 2015 to December 30, 2015, with the construction cost of KRW 55,00,000, and the construction period of KRW 55,000,000, respectively.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)
Defendant B suspended construction around January 2016 while the construction of the instant case was underway, and the Plaintiff paid Defendant B the total amount of KRW 43,000,000 to the construction cost up to that point.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claim against the defendant B
A. The plaintiff's assertion unilaterally ceased the construction of this case. The plaintiff unilaterally cancelled the contract of this case, returned 43,000,000 won for the construction work already paid to the defendant Eul, and claimed 4,818,000 won as damages in lieu of the repair of defects occurring in the building of this case.
B. 11,017,500 won (=the already paid construction cost of KRW 43,00,000 - the orderee is obligated to pay the contractor the construction cost according to the fixedness and good faith even if the contract for the construction work is rescinded in the middle of the contract.
31,982,500 won (i.e., the contract amount of this case 5,00,000 won x 58.15%) / [Grounds for recognition] / Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3; the result of the appraisal commission to the architect E of the architectural office of this court; and (ii) the purport of the entire pleadings in lieu of defect repairs / [2] 4,818,00 won of damages (the occurrence of Madi soil contamination and ficoi, perition of the floor, etc.] / The result of the appraisal commission to the architect E of this court; the purport of the entire pleadings
C. From April 10, 2016, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, Defendant B’s defense over the Plaintiff’s 15,835,500 won (i.e., KRW 11,017,500) and its dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation.