공사대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an outsourcing agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant, with the content that the Plaintiff shall perform the construction works for the improvement of the reading house at each of the 757 U.S. located in the 82 U.S. Do, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, the 82 U.S. Do and the 757 U.S. Do, Seopo-si (hereinafter “the instant construction site”), and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 56,170,40 (including value-added tax; hereinafter “the instant construction cost”).
B. The Plaintiff completed construction in accordance with the terms of the instant contract, and the Defendant paid the remainder, excluding KRW 12,695,901 from October 17, 2013 to January 15, 2014, to the Plaintiff during the period from October 17, 2013 to January 15, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3-5, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 12,695,901, which is the balance of the construction price of this case, and at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 16, 2014 to March 31, 2014, which is the day on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the Defendant, and at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid 12,00,000 won to the Plaintiff at the request of A at the construction site of this case to the Plaintiff, “B,” and that the Defendant paid 12,00,000 won to the Plaintiff in full.
According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2-3, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant remitted 12,00,000 won to the account "C (B)" on December 17, 2013. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above remittance was made by the plaintiff's legitimate direct payment request as the defendant is based on the premise of the defendant.
(2).