beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,698,560 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 5, 2016 to July 12, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the Class II root in C located in Seodaemun-si with KRW 245,00,000 (excluding value-added tax).
(hereinafter referred to as the “main construction” and the “main construction contract”) of the said construction.
The Plaintiff, while carrying out the construction project, performed the additional construction project (hereinafter referred to as the “additional construction project”), and jointly with the main construction project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction project”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant set the additional construction cost at KRW 30,000,000 around October 13, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, each entry of Eul evidence 1, plaintiff 1, defendant's examination result, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. 1) The parties asserted that the construction cost of this case, including the value added tax of the plaintiff, includes 302,50,000 won =275,00,000 won [275,000 won + 30,000 won + 300,000,000 won] ¡¿ 1.1 among them, the plaintiff asserted that the 220,000,000 won paid by the defendant and the 5,00,000,000 won for the other day-to-day defect repair of the floor of the second floor warehouse should be deducted in the complaint.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, on February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff amended its assertion that the said money should not be deducted in the preparatory document dated February 3, 2017, but:
2.(b)
5) We do not accept the changed assertion as seen in paragraph (1), as seen earlier. The Plaintiff’s insurance premium of KRW 1,100,000, industrial accident insurance premium of KRW 2,800,000, Korea-Japan expenses of KRW 2,600,000, and the Rotterdam expenses of KRW 16,500,000 directly executed by the Defendant among the Rotterdam expenses of KRW 9,000,000 that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant. As such, the unpaid construction cost of KRW 66,00,000 is KRW 1,50,000, and the unpaid construction cost of KRW 1,50,000, including value-added tax, should be paid by the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant’s principal construction cost of KRW 269,50,000,000, including value-added tax, should not be imposed on KRW 30,000,00.