beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 15,50,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from July 1, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. On November 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for survey and management services among Section 2 of the Small and Medium Enterprise-UPP and the Second Section, and entered into a contract for survey and management services on November 2013 with the Defendant, and the contract was terminated on April 2015.
B. The total amount of service cost to be received by the Plaintiff under the above service contract is KRW 188,144,00,000, and the Defendant paid only KRW 72,594,000 among the above money, and did not pay the remainder KRW 115,550,00.
[Ground of Recognition] No dispute between the parties or a statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above service cost of KRW 115,550,000 and delay damages.
Around March 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract with Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Modern Construction”) for measurement of Section 2 Section B during the period from March 29, 2013 to April 21, 2016, and concluded the contract with the Plaintiff on the condition that it would pay 82% of the original contract amount during the performance of the contract. However, the Defendant asserted to the purport that, upon entering into a contract with the Plaintiff for the service of the remaining part, Hyundai Construction would have received more service costs of KRW 152,736,329 compared to the performance of the service under the contract with the Defendant in relation to the remaining part of the service, the Plaintiff would have received more than those of the service from Modern Construction, which would have deducted this amount from the Plaintiff’s claim amount.
The reason that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the remaining portion of services between the Plaintiff and the Defendant after the termination of the above service contract is that there is no legal basis to transfer part of the amount that the Plaintiff may receive pursuant to the service contract entered into with Hyundai Construction.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the defendant.