beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단13359

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 38,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 14, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant, setting the construction period from May 2, 2017 to September 25, 2017, with respect to steel structure construction among the new construction works of the Busan-gu DD neighborhood living facilities that the Defendant contracted with the Defendant, as the construction cost of KRW 80 million (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The Plaintiff completed construction under the instant contract and received KRW 50 million from the Defendant.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the construction cost of KRW 38 million (i.e., KRW 88 million - KRW 50 million) and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 14, 2018 to the date of full payment, following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant's assertion is without a construction business license, and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "foreign Co., Ltd.").

(2) The Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost to the subcontractor, etc., even though the Plaintiff received the construction cost from the contractor and paid it to the subcontractor, and the Plaintiff did not pay it to the non-party company. (2) However, the Defendant’s assertion is merely a matter between the Defendant and the non-party company, and does not constitute a ground to oppose the Plaintiff.

The party to the instant construction contract is clear that it is the defendant, and the obligation to the plaintiff is also borne by the defendant.

The Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.