공사대금
1. Defendant C Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 261,80,000 as well as its annual interest from October 17, 2018 to November 23, 2018.
1. Basic facts
A. On May 31, 2017, the Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Agency concluded a contract for construction works with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and Sejong Special Self-Governing City E-Governing City, and B subcontracted part of the said construction works to Defendant B, Defendant C and D (hereinafter “C”), Defendant C and D (hereinafter “D”) each as follows. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 228,800,000, May 31, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 2426,80,000, Jun. 30, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 17090, May 31, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 17068, May 31, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 17958, May 31, 2017; Presidential Decree No
B. On May 6, 2017, the Plaintiff engaged in construction machinery business with the trade name of “F” concluded a lease agreement with Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s aviation and navigation gear amounting to KRW 358,00,000 with respect to the used amount, the period of use from May 6, 2017 to June 30, 2017; and the place of use as the construction site at the place of use.
C. The plaintiff was above B.
Unlike a port contract, Defendant D also entered into a construction machinery lease contract with Defendant D, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 132,000,000 of the construction amount to Defendant D on June 30, 2017. Defendant D paid KRW 132,00,000 to the Plaintiff on July 12, 2017. The Plaintiff returned KRW 32,00,000 to Defendant D on the same day.
Defendant D asserted that “The circumstances in which the purchase was overestimated in the course of the settlement of sales and purchase by Defendant D would have been returned KRW 32,00,000 from the Plaintiff.”
On August 28, 2017, in the name of Defendant D and Defendant C, “F-price payment consent” was drafted with the purport that “Defendant D promises to pay the Plaintiff the cost of file construction equipment if the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of file construction equipment.”
(A) No. 2; hereinafter “instant payment consent”). However, Defendant D’s seal affixed to the instant payment consent was different from the seal registered in the corporate seal imprint certificate.
(C) No. 4. E.
Since then, the Corporation did not proceed smoothly and suspended, Defendant B was around September 2017 and Defendant C.