물품대금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 57,714,700 and Defendant D with respect thereto from March 22, 2018, and Defendant C with respect thereto.
In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the plaintiff was awarded a contract from defendant C on July 27, 2015 for the installation of human typists (value-added tax separately) among the E facility construction works contracted by defendant C from defendant C on July 27, 2015 (hereinafter the construction contract in this case); while the plaintiff was performing the construction in this case under the status of receiving KRW 10,000,000 for the contract deposit for the construction in this case, the defendant D prepared and delivered the "agreement on direct payment of construction cost" to the plaintiff on September 21, 2015, that the plaintiff would directly pay the construction cost of KRW 13,377,000 (value-added tax separate); the plaintiff can be recognized as having completed the construction in this case from January 2016; and the plaintiff received KRW 90,000,000 out of the remainder of the construction work.
According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 57,714,700 (=143,37,000 won - KRW 14,337,700 - KRW 10,000 - KRW 90,000,000), as requested by the plaintiff, the following day after the duplicate of each complaint is served. Defendant D is from March 22, 2018; Defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 8, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Defendant D asserted that Defendant D did not have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff since it paid the remainder of the construction work to Defendant C. However, Defendant D’s assertion did not constitute a defense that could be asserted against the Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant D’s above assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.