logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.11.27 2019나2824
공사대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the objective of maintaining and managing facilities and waterproof construction business, and the Defendant is the representative of the council of occupants' representatives of the C building Ddong and Edong (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for defect repair works of the instant real estate as KRW 21,000,000 with respect to the defect repair works of the instant real estate.

C. The Plaintiff paid 2,800,000 won for defect diagnosis fees to F Co., Ltd. instead of the Defendant.

On October 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the defect repair work and completed the construction work around December 10, 2017.

E. On November 22, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000,000 as construction price, respectively, and KRW 5,000,000 on December 2, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 2 to Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,00,000 (=21,000,000-10,000,000-5,000) for the total of KRW 8,800,000 for the defective diagnosis fees paid in lieu of the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from July 19, 2018 to the date of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, since there still exist defects because the plaintiff failed to properly perform the defect repair work, the defendant's assertion that it is difficult to pay the construction cost, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that there still exists a defect since the plaintiff failed to properly perform the defect repair work, and there is no other evidence to recognize this differently. Therefore,

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.

arrow