손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,298,591 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 7, 2018 to September 5, 2018, and the following.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The status of the parties is that the Plaintiff is the executor of the housing site development project in Chuncheon-do, the area of which is planned to be 425,084 square meters in the area of the Chuncheon-do, Sacheon-dong, Sacheon-dong (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Defendant is the person who supplies urban gas at Chuncheon-dong.
B. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s dispute over the payment of facility contributions to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s demand (hereinafter “arterial facility of this case”) against the Defendant for the gas arterial facility on 99 parcels in the instant project district.
On September 15, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to install the instant arterial facilities. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff sent an official door to the effect that the Plaintiff could not install the instant arterial facilities if the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of installation. Accordingly, on September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff sent an official door to the Plaintiff, stating that the Plaintiff could not pay the cost of installation at the cost of demand, and that the Plaintiff would have received the cost of installation from the Defendant after installing the instant arterial facilities, and that the Plaintiff would have demanded the Plaintiff to pay the cost of installation at the cost of demand on April 8, 2016; and on June 9, 2016, the Defendant sent the official door to the Plaintiff’s request for the installation of the instant arterial facilities by submitting the gas supply pipe drawings and the budget drawings.
3) On November 8, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to conclude a redemption contract for the installation cost of arterial facilities under Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and sent design data and a written contract. On November 16, 2016, the Defendant sent an official letter to the Plaintiff that the contract cannot be concluded with the Plaintiff on November 16, 2016, and attached the modified contract by reflecting the defect repair, demand cost-bearing claim, etc. (iv) the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the installation cost-bearing charge again on March 13, 2017.