logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.10 2019가단515879
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,609,620 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from May 18, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing, selling, etc. of ready-mixed. The defendant is the owner of multi-family housing construction project outside D and 1 lots of land. F (G representative) awarded a subcontract for the above construction work from Eul Co., Ltd., Ltd. to the plaintiff around July 2018 and entered into a contract with the plaintiff to be supplied with ready-mixed from the plaintiff. At the time of the above contract, the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay ready-mixed to the plaintiff at the time of the above contract. The amount of ready-mixed supplied by the plaintiff to the above construction site is 5,609,620 won in total (=28,200,480 won in supply on July 7, 2018, supply 16,546,200 won in supply on August 16, 2018.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 22,609,620 won unpaid ready-mixed (=5,609,620 won - 33,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 18, 2019 to May 31, 2019 (the statutory interest rate prior to the amendment of the main provision of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings) and from the following day to the day of full payment (the statutory interest rate after the amendment of the above provision) to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since the plaintiff agreed to settle the unpaid ready-mixed price with E on April 1, 2019. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the above agreement, the above argument is rejected.

B. Since the Defendant paid the full amount of the structural construction cost to F who performed the structural construction, it may respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

arrow