beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.12.22 2017가단55161

설계비 등 지급

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 61,500,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from December 17, 2016 to December 22, 2017.

Reasons

Judgment on the Grounds of Claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the entire descriptions and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A through 5 (including additional numbers), Defendant B entered into a design contract for the construction of accommodation facilities with the Plaintiff on January 5, 2015, with the contract amount of KRW 65,000,000 (excluding value-added tax). Defendant C entered into a contract for supervision with the Plaintiff on November 2015 with the contract amount of KRW 10,000 (including value-added tax). Defendant C entered into a written confirmation on October 4, 2016 that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 55,00,000 in the balance of the said design contract, the balance of the supervision contract, and KRW 2,50,000 in the balance of the supervision contract, and the fact that the Plaintiff completed the said design and supervision on December 16, 2016. The Plaintiff is a person who has received the said design contract with the Defendants on December 16, 200, KRW 700,000 under the said design contract.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 61,50,000,00, including the balance of the above design contract and value-added tax (i.e., KRW 55,00,000, value-added tax of KRW 65,500,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from December 17, 2016 to December 22, 2017, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Defendant C is jointly obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 2,50,000 under the supervision contract with Defendant B and the balance of the design contract plus KRW 55,00,000 from December 17, 2016 to December 25, 2017, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 57,500,000 per annum from the next day of the litigation.

B. The Plaintiff sought value-added tax of 6.5 million won under the design contract against Defendant C, and thus, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder of 5,000,000 won for Defendant C’s design contract, as seen earlier. However, the value-added tax is also levied on the said design contract price.