beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 57,950,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 24, 2015 to December 7, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 5, 2015, the Defendant subcontracted tin construction work among the construction works of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building that the Defendant contracted to B.
B. The Plaintiff supplied B with stone equivalent to KRW 147,950,000 necessary for the said stone work, but B paid KRW 90,000,000 out of the price of goods until September 21, 2015.
C. On September 21, 2015, C representing the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 57,950,000 to the Plaintiff and B for the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff by October 23, 2015.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment agreement”) . [Grounds for recognition] . Each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 57,950,000 won for unpaid goods under the payment agreement of this case and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from October 24, 2015 to December 7, 2017, which is the date following the due date for payment of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
B. 1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the amount of the unpaid goods to be paid to the Plaintiff remains any more by treating them as wages, food expenses, equipment rent, etc. for the parts of the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) the written evidence No. 1 is insufficient to acknowledge that the wage-type rent, etc. claimed by the Defendant is the obligation to be borne by the Plaintiff; and (b) there is no other evidence to deem otherwise; and (c) according to the above evidence, it appears to be the portion to be borne by the Plaintiff, the subcontractor, and therefore, the above argument is without merit. (d) The Defendant also argues to the effect that there is no liability to pay the Plaintiff, as the subcontract price to be paid to B remains
In the instant case, spam, etc.