채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for work with the Defendant for a fixed period of KRW 138,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) from April 3, 201 to June 30, 2017 for the following terms: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a contract for work with the Defendant during the period from April 3, 2017 to June 30, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff failed to complete the work by June 30, 2017 does not conflict between the parties.
The following:
5. Terms and conditions of settlement: 30% in the first term, 30% in the first term, 41,400,000 won in the first term, 70% in the additional tax completion amount, 70% in the first term, 96,60,000 won in the first term, 70% in the additional tax completion amount, 96,60,000 won in the first term, respectively.
7. Contract performance guarantee rate: 10% of the contract amount (guarantee insurance); 10% of the contract amount (0.1) / Date (in counting from the date of completion of an agreement).
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff unilaterally notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract on the ground that the Defendant was in excess of June 30, 2017, and sought compensation for damages, but the Plaintiff merely agreed to extend the construction period and did not delay the construction due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable for damages against the Defendant. As to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation that there was no liability for damages against the Defendant, the Defendant did not complete the Plaintiff’s obligation in violation of the duty stipulated in the instant contract by the agreed deadline, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay a penalty of KRW 15,180,00 to the Defendant
3. Determination
A. Where there is an agreement between the contract performance guarantee and the liquidated damages in the nature of the contract performance guarantee in the contract, it is reasonable to view the contract performance guarantee as a penalty for breach of contract or penalty, and the liquidated damages as an liquidated damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da28526, Dec. 12, 1995; 95Da11436, Apr. 26, 1996). As seen earlier, there is an agreement between the contract performance guarantee and the liquidated damages in the contract of this case.