공사대금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,720,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 6, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant concluded a construction contract with the construction business operator as KRW 3,00,000 on June 15, 2015 by designating the Korea-do Construction Corporation for Single Housing Area (Seoul-gu E; hereinafter "the instant construction project") as KRW 3,00,000 on an ordinary basis; the plaintiff performed and completed the structural construction of the instant construction project; on August 18, 2015, the defendant agreed to pay the remaining construction cost remaining after settling the construction cost of KRW 63,720,000 on the same day from KRW 15,720,00 on the same day to the plaintiff on the same day.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 6, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that since the Plaintiff received 22,00,000,000 won from the bond company (F), the remainder of the construction cost after deducting it (i.e., the above 48,720,000 won - the above 22,00,000 won).
The Plaintiff received KRW 18,00,000 from a bond company on July 2, 2015 after borrowing KRW 22,000,000 from the bond company and deducting KRW 4,000,000,000 from the prior interest. However, there is no dispute between the parties. Meanwhile, even according to the Defendant’s statement at the second date for pleading, the Plaintiff asserted that “the above KRW 22,00,000 is lent to the bond company and the bond company company, and the Defendant is unrelated to himself/herself, and the Defendant is not obligated to pay the full payment,” and the Plaintiff also claims that the said KRW 22,00,000 was not paid to the Plaintiff and C with the above construction payment. Therefore, there is no reason to deduct this from the above construction payment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion otherwise.
The defendant's status.