beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.12.15 2015가단54818

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,392,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from September 2, 2016 to December 15, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. A medical corporation B (hereinafter “B”) borrowed the name of the Defendant in January 2014 and was awarded a contract with the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 115,500,000,00, including value-added tax, for the heating and cooling work at the ward and the funeral hall among the new construction work of the Dental care hospital in C. However, among them, the cost of heating and cooling work at the funeral hall was KRW 72,60,000, including value-added tax, and the cost of heating and cooling work at the funeral hall was KRW 42,90,000 including value-added tax, and the construction cost was increased to KRW 7,45,00,00 including value-added tax.

B. On May 12, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff for the air-conditioning and heating construction costs.

C. On or before July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff confirmed that B employees completed the above changed heating and cooling work and received confirmation from E, who was delegated all the authority to the above work from the Defendant. The funeral home heating and cooling work performed only to piping and drick work, and settled the weather height at KRW 12,047,00,000 including value-added tax, between E and E. The said contract was implicitly rescinded.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 5-10, 13-1, 13-2, Eul 2, witness E, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the plaintiff was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was unaware of borrowing the name of the defendant Eul from the defendant.

The plaintiff completed the heating and cooling construction work, and delivered it to the defendant's agent E.

Therefore, the defendant's settlement amount of KRW 37,392,00 (=42,90,000 7,4445,000 - 12,047,000 - 25,000), and as to this, it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the scope of the obligation of performance of this case from September 2, 2016, which is the day following the delivery date of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim of this case, until December 15, 2016.

참조조문