logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.02 2013가합74566
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 589,380,403 as well as its annual 6% from January 1, 2013 to October 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. On July 18, 2008, the Defendant determined the construction period of Seoul National University C (hereinafter “instant construction”) from July 24, 2008 to July 23, 201, as the contract price of KRW 62,330,00,00 (value of KRW 55,754,545,450, value-added tax of KRW 5,575,454,554,555,550) and received contracts from A University.

B. On April 11, 201, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant for metal and windows construction during the instant construction period from April 11, 2011 to July 23, 201, with the contract price of KRW 3,817,00,000 (value of supply KRW 3,470,000,000, value-added tax of KRW 347,000,000).

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The instant subcontract was modified on five occasions by October 31, 2012, and the construction period was extended by December 31, 2012.

C. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff completed construction under the instant subcontract.

On July 10, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the details of the settlement following the completion of the instant subcontract. On July 10, 2013, the Defendant paid the remainder of the construction cost reduced by KRW 104,00,000 (value-added tax of KRW 10,400,000, including value-added tax of KRW 114,40,000) to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Plaintiff, among the construction cost under the instant subcontract, completed the instant subcontract construction. However, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 114,400,00 in total of KRW 104,000 and value-added tax of KRW 10,400,000. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 114,40,000. The Defendant asserted that the construction cost should be reduced due to design change in the course of settlement with the ordering person, but there is no ground to do so, and there is no consent to the details of such settlement.

arrow