공사대금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 240,310,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 20, 2018 to the date of full payment.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of the Rotterdam Corporation, and the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of the Rotterdam Design Business, etc.
B. From February 22, 2018 to April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff entered “C” construction cost of KRW 180,000,00 (excluding value-added tax, and KRW 20,000,000 (excluding value-added tax)/payment method: Within February 22, 2018, the remainder amount of KRW 160,000 (excluding value-added tax)/payment date: Within April 30, 2018; ② “D” construction cost of interior works from February 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018; and “D” is corrected as a clerical error in the contract; and thus, it is obvious that it is obvious that the contract period is 20,000,000 won.
“The construction cost of KRW 90,000,000 (excluding value-added tax, “the method of payment of construction cost: 20,000,000 won in advance: the payment date: February 23, 2018; and the remainder of KRW 70,000,000 (excluding value-added tax)/payment date: Within 60 days after the completion of the event”; each contract was concluded, respectively.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant First and Second Contracts”) in order
C. Around March 15, 2018, with the Defendant, the Plaintiff corrected “E” as of March 2, 2018 to April 24, 2018, as the “E” contract term from March 2, 2018 to April 24, 2018, since it is obvious that the contract is a clerical error, it is obvious that it is a clerical error.
“The construction cost of KRW 95,000,000 (excluding value-added tax, “the method of payment of the construction cost: 25,000,000 won in advance: the payment date: within April 25, 2018; and the remainder 70,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax)/payment date: Within 60 days after the completion of the event”; and entered into a contract for construction work.”
(hereinafter “instant third contract”). D.
The Plaintiff fulfilled all the duty to install and remove “Pampling business” under each of the instant contracts.
E. The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s construction cost under each of the instant contracts, and March 10, 200.