beta
Text
The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 77,505,360, as well as 5% per annum from June 18, 2015 to January 19, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants agreed to construct the factories of Defendant Limited Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and the commercial buildings of Defendant C (the representative director E of the Defendant Company), on the ground of the Gunsan City D owned by them (hereinafter “instant factories”), and ordered the Plaintiff to build the new buildings of each of the instant buildings on May 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant buildings”).
(However, in addition to the integration contract of each building of this case, the contract for construction of a factory and the contract for construction of a commercial building were prepared separately in order to make the nominal owner different from the original registration of ownership preservation.
The important contents of the instant construction contract are as follows.
Article 2 (Total Amount of Contract) 327,300,000 won, and the date of completion of Article 3 (Payment and Completion) of the Value-Added Tax Map 1: the date of completion of the construction: August 2, 2014: the date of completion of the construction as at the time of completion of the construction as at the time of completion of the construction as at August 30, 2014. Article 4 (Payment Method): 10,000 won: 10,000 won: 50,000 won, 30,000 won, 10,000 won, and 10,000 won: Provided, That this payment agreement was cancelled by the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ implied intent.
4) Balance: 67,300,000 won and after completion Article 7 (Land Compensation) 1) “B” (Plaintiff) shall pay to “A” (Defendants) delayed compensation equivalent to 1/1,000 per day of delay if the construction is completed within the period and the completion of the construction is not possible.
C. In the course of the Plaintiff’s construction, it was revealed that each of the instant buildings infringed upon a road site owned by the Gunsan City due to the starting error of the construction, the Plaintiff and the Defendants removed and reconstructed the said building; however, the costs were to be borne by the Plaintiff and the architect.
On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff started removal and reconstruction construction of each building of this case, and started construction of the factory of this case.