beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 2, 2018 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 25, 2014, the Defendant prepared and delivered each letter (Evidence A 1; hereinafter “each letter of this case”) stating that “I will pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff by March 2014,” to the Plaintiff.
B. On August 24, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million in the preparation of the letter of this case, it is obligated to pay the remaining agreed amount of KRW 40 million ( KRW 50 million - KRW 10 million) and damages for delay pursuant to the above agreement.
B. 1) The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription period: (a) three years have elapsed since March 2014, which was the due date stipulated in each of the instant notes, on the premise that the period of extinctive prescription is applied to the obligation for construction price; and (b) the said claim has expired after March 2014; and (c) if there was an agreement between the Plaintiff, the obligee, and the Defendant, who is the debtor, on the claim for the said construction price, as well as the claim for the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, if there was an agreement between the Plaintiff, the obligee, and the Defendant as the debtor,
In light of the above legal principles, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 and the whole arguments, Eul had contracted construction work from D Co., Ltd., and D Co., Ltd. failed to pay construction price to Eul. The defendant, who was the representative director of D Co., Ltd., was prepared and delivered each of the instant reports on part of the construction price to the plaintiff, who is the spouse of B. Thus, the claim against D Co., Ltd. against the original defendant is also a claim for construction price.