beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 104,800,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 1, 2013 to March 24, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 450,98 million and the construction period from May 3, 2013 to June 30, 2013, respectively.
B. From July 22, 2013 to September 17, 2013, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff as construction cost.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was completed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 14.8 million ( KRW 459.8 million - KRW 355 million) to the Plaintiff. 2) Since the Defendant’s assertion failed to complete the instant construction work, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.
(b) If the construction was suspended during the proceeding and fails to complete the last stage of the intended construction, the construction shall be deemed to have been completed, but the construction shall be deemed to have completed the last stage of the intended construction and its main text;
It is reasonable to interpret that the part of the structure is completed as agreed and completed by social norms, but it is only a defect in the object, but it is reasonable to interpret that it is only a defect in the object, and whether the intended last fairness has been completed or not shall be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the contract and the principle of good faith and sincerity, regardless of the contractor's assertion or the contractor's completion inspection.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da32986, Sept. 30, 1994; 2009Da7212, 7229, Jan. 14, 2010). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, according to the health class, 3, and 4 evidence of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s employees C were us with respect to the defect repair of the B factory, and 2 workers of the Plaintiff, who were gold day in relation to the defect repair of the B factory.