beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff concluded a construction contract with the Defendant, who is the subcontractor of the project to create the C church site located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City, with respect to the blasting construction of the said site (hereinafter “instant construction”) from August 1, 2014 to November 10, 2014, with the construction period of KRW 58,300,000 (including value-added tax).
B. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 34,242,770 from the Defendant and the Hank Construction Co., Ltd., the contractor, as the construction price of the instant case.
C. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 24,057,230 (=58,300,000 - KRW 34,242,770) and the delay damages therefrom.
2. We examine the judgment, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction work verbally, the Plaintiff received total of KRW 34,242,770 from the Defendant and the Hank Construction Co., Ltd., the contractor for the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff’s partial blasting construction work may be acknowledged by taking full account of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (including the serial number); and (c) the images of evidence Nos. 2, and the purport
However, with respect to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the construction cost at KRW 58,300,00 in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s statement of KRW 2 and KRW 6 (including the paper number) is a quotation unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to accept it solely on the basis of each statement of KRW 8 and KRW 9 (including the paper number). There is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
In addition, even if there was an agreement between the parties on the construction cost of KRW 58,30,00,00, as alleged by the Plaintiff, according to the statement in Gap evidence 6-2, the construction contract in this case is scheduled to settle the amount, and each of the statement in Gap evidence 10 to 15 (including the serial number) is stated alone, which the plaintiff received from the defendant.