beta
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 Defendant newly constructed a multi-household house on the land other than Seopo-si, Seopo-si, and entered into a contract for the said construction with E where the Defendant’s son is the representative director.
B. Around March 1, 2013, F had ceased to perform construction work upon subcontracting of KRW 120,000,000 for the construction cost of reinforced concrete construction among the above construction works from E Co., Ltd.
C. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the F agreed to complete the subcontracted project as a result of a consultation on the measures following the discontinuance of construction around April 19, 2013, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the subcontract price less the amount already paid.
Since then, the Plaintiff completed the said subcontracted work.
E. Until the time the above agreement was reached, KRW 71,00 as the subcontract price. The construction price paid after the said agreement is KRW 30,700,000 that the Plaintiff received directly from the Plaintiff and KRW 43,70,000 that the Defendant paid on behalf of the Plaintiff and KRW 3,700,000 that the Defendant paid on behalf of the Plaintiff.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the construction cost of KRW 5,215,00 (i.e., KRW 120,00,000 - KRW 71,085,00 - KRW 43,700,00) and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from December 4, 2014, which is the following day after a copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Plaintiff, until May 21, 2015, when it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute over the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation to perform the obligation.
The plaintiff alleged that he/she settled the remaining construction cost of KRW 64,00,000 at the time of the above agreement, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the settlement of accounts only with the statement Nos. 4 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.