logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.26 2015가단30288
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,596,300 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 22, 2015 to July 1, 2015, and the following.

Reasons

The Defendant awarded a contract to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015, and on January 16, 2015, A paid the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 54,596,300 (including value-added tax), the construction period of KRW 20,000 from January 16, 2015, and the remainder of the construction amount of KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff upon entering into a contract, and paid the remainder within one month after the completion of the construction, the Plaintiff, A, and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of the instant construction cost of KRW 20,000 on January 16, 2015, and the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff at the rate of 12% per annum, and the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 21, 2015.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 31,596,30 (i.e., KRW 54,596,300; KRW 20,000; KRW 3,000,000 paid on April 21, 2015; and as for this, from February 22, 2015 to July 1, 2015, it is evident that it is a copy of the complaint in this case from February 22, 2015 to July 1, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 15 per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

The defendant asserts that the defect repair cost should be offset against the construction cost as the defect occurred in the construction work of this case executed by the plaintiff, but it is not sufficient to recognize the defect repair cost only by the statement of Eul No. 1, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition and partly accepted it, and remainder.

arrow