공사대금
1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 98,308,00 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from February 4, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
1. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff’s determination on the cause of the claim: (a) completed the construction after receiving a supply of and demand for meal service facilities and new construction works for a multi-purpose lecture from the Defendant for the period from October 5, 2015 to December 10, 2016; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant increased the construction cost to KRW 1,823,686,00, but finally decided to settle the construction cost at KRW 1,773,61,40; and (c) the Defendant did not pay KRW 98,308,000 out of the construction cost to the Plaintiff, either there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of each of the arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including the case where there is a serial number), is added to the whole purport of the pleadings set forth therein.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 98,308,00 and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract for the current construction company (hereinafter “prepaid construction”), but did not pay wages to the employees.
Therefore, workers filed a petition on the grounds of delayed payment of wages with the Posi District Office of Daegu Regional Employment and Labor, and the head of the Posisi District Office requested the Defendant to withhold the payment of KRW 98,308,00,000, which is equivalent to the overdue wages, and only did not pay the said money to the Plaintiff.
The defendant has the intention to pay the construction price to the plaintiff at any time if the defendant receives a written confirmation that the above overdue wages were paid from the plaintiff or a written rejection of the worker's waiver.
B. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the fact that the Plaintiff paid all the subcontract price to an pending construction who is obligated to pay the overdue wages does not dispute between the parties and that there is no other obligation to pay the said overdue wages to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. If so, the Defendant’s conclusion is based on the Plaintiff’s KRW 98,308,00 and its due date.