덤프사용료
1. The defendant is the plaintiff (appointed party), the 5,318,500 won, the 3,117,400 won to the Appointed B, and the Appointed Co., Ltd.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, and 2, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties B, and the annual tax development corporation (hereinafter “annual tax development”) agreed with the Defendant to transport miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous 1 to “the construction of Gyeong Jin-jin, Gyeong-J, Soon Memorial Party and Sowing Party” under a subcontract with the Defendant for the housing taken into account by the Defendant, and to transport miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous 10,00 won per time from April 16, 2014 to June 9, 2014. The Plaintiff’s dump use amounted to 8,195,000 won per year, equivalent to KRW 6,234,800 won per year development.
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 2,876,50,000, excluding KRW 5,318,500, excluding KRW 6,234,800, excluding KRW 3,117,400, and KRW 3,117,400, excluding KRW 28,600,000, excluding KRW 14,300,000, excluding KRW 14,300,000, excluding KRW 28,60,000, and delay damages from the date of delivery of the complaint at the Plaintiff’s request by the Plaintiff, to the date of full payment of the annual interest rate of KRW 14,30,00,00 and KRW 14,300,000,000 from February 10, 2015 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint at the Plaintiff’s request.
As to this, the Defendant agreed to pay dump royalty upon the receipt of the construction cost from the housing Korea, which is the principal contractor, between the Plaintiff, Appointers B, and the annual rent development, and the Plaintiff was still unable to receive the construction cost from the principal contractor.