공사대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,500,000 as well as annual 6% from July 31, 2018 to December 26, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
1. On May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim was subcontracted by the Defendant for a panel construction among new D-built construction works, and completed the construction on July 30, 2017, and the fact that the construction was not paid KRW 44.50,000 among the construction price was not in dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff did not have any dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim was recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 44,50,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from July 31, 2018 to December 26, 2018, the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was exempted from the Defendant’s remaining obligation for the construction cost, since the Defendant subcontracted the Plaintiff’s team construction work in the course of performing the construction work after being awarded a contract for a new construction work from the E farming association, and the E farming association entered into a written payment agreement that the Plaintiff
Whether the nature of the assumption of an obligation is so-called “liability assumption” or “joint assumption of an obligation” or “joint assumption of an obligation” is a matter regarding the interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the assumption of an obligation agreement, and if it is unclear as to the assumption of an obligation, it shall be deemed that the assumption of an obligation is exempt or if it is unclear as to the place of the overlapping obligation acquisition, it is deemed that the obligation
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228 delivered on September 24, 2002, etc.). In this case, according to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 2 of Article 1 and the whole purport of the arguments set forth in subparagraphs B (including the number of pages), E farming association companies shall pay the construction price directly to the Plaintiff.