용역비
1. The defendant's KRW 30,727,377 as well as 6% per annum from March 7, 2020 to September 23, 2020 as to the plaintiff.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff entrusted the business of pre-inspection of the occupancy of apartment units from the Defendant who operates the service company of the trade name “D” in 2017 and paid KRW 33,000,000 out of the service cost of February 9, 2017. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid service cost of KRW 33,000,000 (hereinafter “instant unpaid payment”) and damages for delay, barring any special circumstance.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant asserts that the defendant, as of June 2019, the defendant, as well as the defendant, traded services with a similar content from E and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "F"), and that the defendant would pay part of the defendant's outstanding amounts to F around 2019 and deduct it from the outstanding amounts to the defendant as of June 2019, the defendant's debt against the plaintiff is KRW 270,000,000, and all of the outstanding amounts are paid around March 2020, the defendant's debt against the plaintiff was fully repaid.
B. Determination 1) The Defendant’s argument as to whether F assumes the Defendant’s obligation as discharge is ultimately F’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and thus, F was discharged from F’s obligation. Whether the assumption of obligation is overlapped is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the assumption of obligation agreement. The burden of proving that there is a special circumstance to be deemed as the assumption of obligation with discharge, and that there is a special circumstance to be deemed as the assumption of obligation. In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant’s assertion is based on the following: (a) whether the obligation to the Plaintiff was assumed as discharge; (b) whether the obligation was assumed as discharge; (c) whether the obligation was assumed as discharge; (d) whether the obligation was assumed as discharge; and (e) whether the obligation was taken as discharge; and (e) whether the obligation was taken as discharge discharge; and (e) whether the obligation was taken as it was taken as a pleading