logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.07.12 2016가단25522
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,700,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from July 6, 2016 to July 12, 2017.

Reasons

1. Under the facts acknowledged, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 4, and part of Gap evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and contrary thereto, Gap evidence No. 3 is likely to believe, and there is no other counter-proof.

The plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of installing the system, and the defendant is a corporation that runs the construction business.

B. On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to accept construction works to install a system in the A Hospital located in Cheongju-si (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. Although the construction cost under the instant contract was agreed upon as KRW 225,500,000, the Plaintiff agreed to perform the construction work in line with the payment situation, etc. from the ordering agency, and accordingly, the Plaintiff completed only the pipeline installation works among the instant construction works by June 24, 2015.

Of the construction cost of piping installation works completed by the Plaintiff, the accounts payable shall be 22.7 million won.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from July 6, 2016 to July 12, 2017, which is the date of the adjudication of this case as sought by the Plaintiff from July 6, 2016, which is the date of the adjudication of this case pursuant to the contract of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its implementation is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow