beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.18 2016나208053

양수금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship between the parties, etc. 1) The Plaintiff and B (hereinafter “B”)

(2) On December 31, 2012, 2006, the Plaintiff provided a sectionally owned building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E as security for the loan.

B. The Defendant entered into a contract for the construction of a main complex building between the Defendant and B (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) on January 30, 2013 and December 30, 2013, with the content that the main complex building was newly constructed by setting the price of KRW 4.91.6 million (including value-added tax), and the period from February 18, 2013 to June 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction contract or “instant construction contract”).

(2) The above construction contract included the agreement to pay liquidated damages at the rate of 0.1% compared to the daily contract amount per the number of delayed days where the construction is delayed due to the reasons attributable to B, and the agreement to pay the overdue interest corresponding to the rate of 0.1% compared to the unpaid construction cost per the number of delayed days even if the payment of the construction cost by the Defendant is delayed.

C. On February 20, 2014, B sent an official letter to the Defendant on February 20, 2014 to the effect that the construction in this case was delayed due to the design change, etc., that the construction in this case would promptly complete the procedure for permission to modify the design in this case and take measures to ensure that the construction would be carried out as soon as possible. 2) As to this, on February 24, 2014, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail to the Defendant and the co-owner to the effect that the construction in this case was interrupted for a period of four months from October 24, 2013, so that the Defendant and the co-owner would be able to resume the construction immediately after

3. In addition, the defendant on February 24, 2014, on February 22, 2013, to Non-Mata Group architectural firms.