beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 69,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from April 15, 2014 to February 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of construction of steel structure, etc. under the trade name “B,” concluded a contract for construction works with the Defendant, setting the construction cost of KRW 434,500,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to “C Corporation” as the construction cost.
B. At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff added construction works, such as water tank cream works, water intake wells construction works, knives team construction works, siren changes, and omission of drawings.
On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the said construction work.
C. Around December 2014, the Plaintiff settled the final construction cost of KRW 484,00,000, including value-added tax.
The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 408,000,000,000, in total, until February 24, 2014, including the payment of KRW 11,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 14, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 8, Eul's evidence 1 (including branch numbers), and the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above findings of determination, the Plaintiff completed additional construction works in addition to the construction works specified in the contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 69,00,000,000, which is paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 484,00,000 - KRW 408,000) and the amount of KRW 69,000,000, which is the day following the completion date of the above construction, from April 15, 2014 to February 22, 2017, which is the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.