공사대금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 44,656,50 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from March 20, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the use of heavy equipment (B/H 300LC, vehicle number B) as follows:
(hereinafter “instant contract”). The daily operating hours of KRW 7,500,000 during the monthly user fee from November 5, 201 to June 30, 2013, using the place C’s line improvement work (two tools) using the place, 200 hours during the daily operating hours of KRW 7,50,000 from November 5, 201 to June 30, 201
B. From November 5, 201 to December 2012, the Plaintiff put D as a heavy equipment engineer at the Defendant’s work site. On December 31, 2012, the aforementioned line improvement work was suspended.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff puts D equipment engineer D in accordance with the instant contract, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 44,656,50 in total from July 2012 to December 2012.
B. The Defendant’s assertion from January 2012 to October 2012, 2012, while working as DD while serving as a equipment engineer, was paid for some of the mid-term equipment costs and labor costs. As such, it is difficult to deem that the company engaged in labor, such as surveying work, while performing heavy equipment works, and thus, cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of unpaid equipment costs.
C. Determination 1) According to the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 3-1 through 10 of the evidence No. 3, the fact that: (a) the day he/she worked as a heavy equipment engineer and the day he/she served as an employee for the same period from January 2012 to October 2012, 2012 is recognized, which is 24 days from January 5 to October 5, 2012. However, the evidence No. 5-1 (the evidence No. 6) is recognized.
In other words, E, the defendant's on-site director, when the defendant did not obtain the necessary human resources due to the lack of funds, which is recognized as a comprehensive consideration of the contents of the statement and the whole purport of the arguments.