(b) Standards for determining the interest rate on loans where a contractor agrees to apply the interest rate on loans for money trust in commercial banks where the contractor delays the payments.

B. The purport of the contract to apply the interest rate on delayed loan to a commercial bank where the contractor delays the payment is agreed to apply the interest rate on the money trust loan to the contractor. It is reasonable to deem that the contractor agreed to pay the contractor the amount equivalent to the interest amount corresponding to the case where the contractor does not pay the contractor the payment for the completed payment due to the fixed amount. Therefore, the interest rate on money trust loan to the contractor

2. The defendant's remaining appeal and the plaintiff's appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be four minutes, one of which shall be borne by the defendant, and the other shall be borne by the plaintiff.

4. Based on the defendant's application for the return of provisional payments, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 94,636,529 and the annual interest rate of KRW 5% from September 25, 1993 to May 24, 1994 and the annual interest rate of KRW 25% from the next day to the day of complete payment.

5. The defendant's remaining motion to return the provisional payment is dismissed.

6. Paragraph 4 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 628,00,000 won with 25% interest per annum from July 12, 1992 to the day of complete payment.

Defendant: The part of the first instance judgment against Defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to this part is dismissed.

On May 30, 1990, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff compensation for delay in accordance with the ratio of 1/100 of the initial construction contract amount to the number of days delayed when the Defendant fails to complete the above construction work within the above construction period. The fact that the Plaintiff completed the completion inspection on May 2, 1992 upon filing an application for completion inspection with the competent authority on April 16, 1992 with the date of completion of the above contract and the date of the actual completion of the above contract’s completion inspection on June 10, 1990, and the fact that the actual completion date of the above contract’s completion inspection on June 10, 1990 is no dispute between the parties concerned, or otherwise, the purport of subparagraph 12 cannot be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the pleading.

2. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 980,000,00 for delay compensation corresponding to the delayed period in accordance with the aforementioned agreement, since the Defendant delayed the construction of new buildings of this case and completed the completion inspection at the latest on May 2, 1992, more than 245 days than the completion date under the said contract.

The facts that the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff compensation for delay at the rate of 1/100 of the initial construction contract amount per one day when the above construction period is not completed are the same as above, but the term "when the construction work is completed" means completing the construction of the building to the extent that the contractor is able to undergo a completion inspection and delivering it to the contractor together with all documents necessary for the completion inspection. Considering the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5-1, 2 as stated in each of the above evidence No. 4, 5, 3 and 1, the testimony of the court below (excluding the portion which is not trusted after the testimony of the witness No. 1, 1992), the defendant did not receive the above completion inspection from the plaintiff on Jan. 28, 1992, but part of the construction was not completed at the time of the completion inspection, and the plaintiff did not receive the completion inspection from the plaintiff on Feb. 15, 1992 to the extent that the remaining part of the construction work was not completed.

According to the above facts, the building of this case was completed to the extent that it can undergo a completion inspection on April 16, 1992. Accordingly, the completion of the building of this case is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 876,00,000 (4,00,000,000 x 1/1,000 x 200219 x 2199) under the above agreement for liquidated damages unless there are special circumstances.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of exemption from liquidated damages

A. According to the evidence No. 1, the case where the commencement of construction is delayed or suspended due to the plaintiff's responsibility, or where construction is delayed due to other reasons not belonging to the defendant's responsibility, it can be acknowledged that there is no other counter-proof, and the defendant claims that the compensation for delay should be exempted for delay corresponding to the following periods. Thus, the defendant claims that the compensation for delay should be exempted.

(1) In full view of the whole purport of the oral argument in the testimony of the Plaintiff Company No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1 of the Plaintiff Company from April 2, 191 to July 1, 191, which was delayed due to the wind delayed in requesting the alteration of the design of the non-construction site, and the testimony of the court below No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1 of the Plaintiff Company’s 90 days from July 2, 1991, and each of the testimony of the former Gyeong-ho (except for the parts not trusted later), the Defendant’s testimony of the former Gyeong-ho, which was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company at the time of early April 1, 1991, would reduce the size of the stone attached to the outer wall of the instant building and would be sufficient to consider the alteration of the outer design in a direction that greatly reduces the size of the stone attached to the original design, and thus, the Defendant’s testimony should not be recognized otherwise.

According to the above facts, the defendant's assertion is justified within the above scope, since it is not attributable to the defendant as to the delay of the construction project between April 25, 1991 and July 1 of the same year when the design change agreement was made in accordance with the original design drawing.

(2) The period between October 17, 1991 and November 30, 1991, which was 45 days from October 17, 1991 to 30 of the same year, where the Defendant claimed construction costs due to the FIO on September 2, 1991.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of testimony and oral argument, the plaintiff agreed that the defendant shall immediately inspect the completed portion of the construction work of this case upon the defendant's request for inspection of the completed portion and pay the progress portion at the time of request for inspection, but unlike the original agreement as shown in the attached Table, unlike the original agreement, it shall be paid in promissory note at the time of request for inspection of the completed portion, and the payment of the progress portion has been delayed once more than once and four times more than once, and the progress portion has been paid within one half from the date of request for the completion portion from the last one to three times, but as to the fourth period period from September 2, 1991, the defendant filed a request on the claim, and whether the amount of the requested portion was reasonable, and the defendant did not pay the progress portion on the grounds of subsequent presentation of the progress portion, and the defendant did not make a request for the resumption of the construction work in accordance with the previous precedent and did not make a request for the suspension of the construction work of this case.

As above, unlike the initial agreement, the payment of the work price according to the already agreed upon shall be paid in a promissory note, and the payment of the work price has been delayed more than once, and not less than once a month since the date when the claim was made with respect to the four-time sexual high schools, if it is uncertain that there was no festing relation to the payment of the work price, the remaining payment of the work price could not be confirmed even if the contract was continued to be executed with the agreement on delayed compensation for the payment of the work price under the plaintiff's contract. Thus, the defendant's 45-day period from October 17, 191 to November 30 of the same year by the above payment delay of the work price cannot be attributed to the defendant. Thus, the above argument

(3) Between September 20, 1991 and September 26, 1999 to September 26, 199; 7 days from December 29, 191 to January 4, 1992; and 15 days which were unable to work due to winter.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, since the date and the expiration date of the period can be recognized as specific facts by the plaintiff and the defendant, even if the period is included in the middle of such period, such circumstance alone does not constitute the defendant's liability for failure to conduct the construction work during the above period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

(4) Between 10 days required due to an additional construction under the agreement of January 17, 1992

In full view of the statements Nos. 3-1 and 2 and the purport of the pleading in the testimony of the witness Lee Jong-chul, the defendant agreed on Jan. 17, 1992 on the modification of the construction cost as to the part which was executed or agreed to be modified and executed differently from the contents of the original construction contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and agreed on the addition of the original design, such as string additional construction work, external road packing work, fire-fighting land additional construction work, distribution and other adjustment work, electric light equipment, security light equipment, broadcasting light equipment, ground corridor and toilet tent work, etc., which were not originally included in the original design, and thereafter, it cannot be acknowledged that the additional construction of fire-fighting land register, distribution and other adjustment work, electric light equipment, security light equipment, broadcasting equipment, ground floor, corridor and toilet tent work, etc., and there is no counter-proof.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall not be responsible for the ten-day period not exceeding the ten-day period required due to the above additional construction works. Therefore, the above argument is with merit.

(5) On January 27, 192, the building of this case was completed to the extent that it was possible to undergo a completion inspection, and the plaintiff did not affix a seal to the inspection board to the inspection board in order not to pay the remainder of the construction even though the plaintiff confirmed the fact on January 29 of the same year. Thus, the period from May 2, 1992, which received the actual completion inspection

In addition to partial testimony of the above witness who is not believed to be a party member, there is no evidence to deem that the building of this case was completed to the extent that it can undergo a completion inspection on January 27, 1992, and on the contrary, as seen in the above 2.2., the building of this case can be recognized as completed to the extent that it can undergo a completion inspection on April 16, 192, and the above assertion is without merit.

B. Thus, the defendant's defenses of the above agreement to exempt the penalty for delay are 68 days from April 25, 191 to July 1 of the same year, 10. 45 days from October 17 of the same year to November 30 of the same year, and 123 days from additional construction. Thus, the defendant's defenses of the above agreement to exempt the penalty for delay are valid within the scope of 384,000,000 won [4,00,000 x 1/100 x 219-123].

4. Judgment on the defendant's defense of offsetting

A. According to the Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's contract price of KRW 250,00,000 among the above contract price shall be examined within 10 days from the contract date; the mid-term contract price shall be examined immediately upon the defendant's request for inspection of completed portion; according to the progress rate immediately; the completion amount shall be completed at the time of inspection; the settlement procedure for increase or decrease of expenses, such as changes in the contract amount under this contract before 15 days from the application for inspection of completion by the related agency; the completion amount shall be paid at the same time as the completion certificate was issued; and the delayed payment shall be paid at the same time; and there is no counter-proof.

B. The defendant asserts that the advance payment under the above agreement was set off by multiplying the total sum of 278,403,000 won calculated by multiplying the contract price (19.5% per annum from May 1, 1990 to August 13, 191; 278,403,00 won per annum from December 13, 191 to April 30, 192) by the contract price rate (21.5% per annum) during the period from May 30, 199 to the settlement date, from June 10, 199 to the date when the inspection of completed portion was requested by the defendant; 10 days from the date when the defendant submitted the completion date to the plaintiff; and 19 days from the date when the bill was paid or delivered to the defendant.

(1)Advance payments;

In full view of the evidence No. 11-4 of this case’s evidence No. 11-4, the plaintiff is obliged to pay 250,000,000 won for the period of payment, 190.6.20 days after the expiration of 10 days from June 20, 1990 (the above contract shall be deemed to have been delayed because there is no dispute as to the fact that the payment period or the contract was retroactively made on June 10, 1991). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is obliged to pay the defendant compensation due to the delay in payment of the above contract.

As to this, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant at the time of the payment of the advance payment on June 30, 1990 that the plaintiff would not pay compensation due to delay, and even if the agreement is not recognized on domestic affairs, the claim on the work of the contractor constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription of three years under Article 163 of the Civil Act, and the delay damages also constitute a short-term extinctive prescription of three years under Article 163 of the Civil Act. Thus, the plaintiff re-claimed that the period of prescription has

The above argument that the defendant and the defendant agreed not to pay compensation for delay at the time of the payment of the start money on the sole basis of the testimony of the first instance trial witness is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, but the start money constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription of three years with regard to the contracted party's construction as stipulated in Article 163 of the Civil Act. The late payment falls under the above short-term extinctive prescription of three years. Since the late payment damages fall under the short-term extinctive prescription of three years, since the defendant can claim for compensation for delay due to delay of the start money against the plaintiff, the period from June 20, 1990 to June 20, 1993, when the defendant can claim the payment of compensation for delay of the start money to the plaintiff, the change of the above extinctive prescription has merit.

(2) Medium- and long-term gold

In full view of the evidence No. 11-3, 5, and 13 of the above witness Kim Dong-dong's testimony and the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiff delayed payment as shown in the attached Table when he paid a mid-term payment to the defendant four times (as stated in the evidence No. 1 of this case, it is recognized that the defendant agreed to immediately inspect the completed portion of the construction work of this case and pay it in accordance with the ratio of the immediately following completion of the inspection, and barring any other counter-proof, the plaintiff is liable for delay from the date seven days after the request for the completed portion inspection of this case was made by the defendant, which is the reasonable period of time deemed necessary for the completed portion inspection of this case, to the date seven days after the completion date of the inspection of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is liable to pay compensation due to the delay of payment of each of

As to this, the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff would make a settlement with a bill and pay it on the date of payment on the bill. After August 30, 1991, which is the date of completion of the contract, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff since the Defendant was missing in the state of default, which is the date of completion of the contract, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff. However, even before the witness salary and the testimony alone, it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to make a settlement with a bill and make payment on the date of payment on the bill. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no reason for the agreement. In addition, even if the Defendant did not comply with the date of completion of the contract, the agreement shall be resolved in accordance with the above liquidated damages agreement, and the Plaintiff

Furthermore, according to the health deposit and evidence No. 1, the interest rate applicable to the calculation of compensation for delay can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff agreed to apply the monetary trust loan interest rate in a commercial bank to the Defendant. The purport of the agreement is that in a case where the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant the payment for the payment of the payment for delay due to the nature and nature of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the payment for compensation equivalent to the interest amount corresponding to the case where the Defendant borrowed the money from the bank. However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 8-3, the monetary trust loan interest rate in a commercial bank differs according to the company’s credit status, but there is no proof as to the above monetary trust loan interest rate in a commercial bank, the said rate shall be deemed to be 12% per annum of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, if the Plaintiff calculates the compensation for the payment for the delayed payment due to the nature and nature of the payment to the Defendant, the sum of 13,24,377

(c) Completion money;

In full view of the evidence No. 11-14 of the above witness Kim Dong-dong's testimony and the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiff can be recognized as having paid KRW 1,285,900,000 to the defendant on April 16, 1992, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

The defendant asserts that on February 6, 1992, which was 10 days after January 27, 1991 when the defendant submitted the completion date to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay compensation equivalent to the above period because it delayed payment even though the payment was due to the above completion date. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant agreed to pay the completion completion money simultaneously with the issuance of the completion certificate. Thus, the fact that the defendant submitted the completion date to the plaintiff cannot be deemed as substitute for the completion certificate, and as seen earlier, the building of this case was in a state of completion. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

C. According to the above facts, the defendant acquired the claim amounting to KRW 133,244,37 with compensation due to the delay in payment of the above mid-term gold, and it shall be automatically the claim amounting to KRW 384,00,000 with the above claim amounting to KRW 384,00,000 with the claim amounting to the defendant, and the fact that the defendant's preparatory document delivered to the plaintiff's attorney on February 17, 1994, which included the defendant's declaration of set-off with the claim amounting to KRW 384,00,00 with the above claim amounting to KRW 384,843,842 with the above claim amount on the same day, it is clear in the record that it was served on the plaintiff's attorney on February 22, 1994, and thus, it shall be 281,843,840,000 won [the above compensation amounting to KRW 384,000,30500 won];

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 281,843,842 as well as damages for delay at the rate of 5 percent per annum under the Civil Act from July 12, 1992 to May 24, 1994, which is a reasonable date for the imposition of the penalty for delay of this case, to the plaintiff from July 12, 1992, which is clear as the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

5. Determination as to the defendant's application for return of provisional payments

The fact that the Plaintiff received the principal amount of KRW 352,00,000 in total and KRW 41,468,219,000 in total and KRW 393,468,219 in accordance with the judgment of the Cheongju District Court 92,00,3301, which is the judgment of the first instance court on September 24, 1993, from the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.

Based on the amount cited in the trial at the time of September 24, 1993, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant at the time of 281,843,842 won and damages for delay at the rate of 16,987,848 won (281,843,842 x 0.05 x 0.05 x 440/365) calculated by deducting the above 298,831,69 won from the above judgment at the time of the trial at the time of September 24, 1993, it is clear that the plaintiff was paid 94,636,529 won without legal cause.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant the above 94,636,529 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5 percent per annum under the Civil Act from September 25, 1993 to May 24, 1994, which is the day following the above compulsory execution, according to the defendant's application for the return of provisional payment, and the amount of damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which has concluded a different conclusion is unfair, the part of the defendant's appeal is accepted partially, and the part of the judgment of first instance ordering the defendant to pay 281,843,842 won and the amount equivalent to 50% per annum from July 12, 1992 to May 24, 1994 and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to this part shall be dismissed. The remaining appeal of the defendant and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed without merit, and since the defendant's request for provisional payment shall be justified within the scope of the above recognition, the return shall be ordered, and the remaining part shall be dismissed as it is so ordered

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)