beta
Text
1. Of the instant principal lawsuit and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s claims, the e.g., the e., the e.g., the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Counterclaim Association.
Reasons
1. Presumed factual basis
A. On February 3, 2010, the Plaintiff (title prior to the change: Energy Habridrushion Co., Ltd.) concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant’s Association of Diplomatic Korea (hereinafter “Defendant church”) to determine the construction period of air conditioners, cooling and heating systems and mutual assistance facilities installation works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from March 1, 2010 to April 30, 201 (including value-added tax) to be awarded a contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).
B. On September 24, 2011, at the request of the Defendant church, the Plaintiff entered into a modified contract with the Defendant church to change the remaining parts of the instant construction from the Defendant company into a subcontract for the said remaining parts of the construction work (hereinafter “the Defendant company”), and to change the construction work price from September 24, 201 to December 31, 201 (hereinafter “the first modified contract”).
C. On March 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an additional modification agreement with the Defendant Company to increase the construction cost in KRW 649.6 million and to change the construction completion date to March 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant secondary modification agreement”). D.
The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on March 31, 2012, and requested the Defendant Company to pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 71.6 million on June 28, 2012.
E. On May 2, 2012, the Defendant church paid KRW 11.6 million for the completion completion of the instant construction to the Defendant Company, but on July 14, 2012, requested the Defendant church to return the said KRW 11.1.6 million to the Defendant church once again on the ground that the defect in the instant construction works occurred frequently. The Defendant Company returned the said money on July 17, 2012 to the Defendant church.
F. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was the District Court Decision 2013TT 4057, which was the Plaintiff’s Defendants.