logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.07.07 2016가단4047
공사대금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 43,350,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from February 27, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 2014, the Plaintiff performed the heat treatment plant manufacturing work (10,450,000 won for construction work), CSS-ethyl plant manufacturing work (23,100,000 won for construction work) in C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), the Defendant was represented by, but did not receive the payment.

B. On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the above payment, and the Defendant respondeded to the purport that he will pay the above payment individually.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-4, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the construction price of KRW 43,350,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 27, 2016 to the date of full payment after the delivery of the payment order in this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant planned to use the defendant's non-psychrony as the plaintiff defaulted on the company of this case.

B. The defendant asserts that he only induced the answer such as the foregoing, and that the defendant does not assume the obligations of the company of this case.

On the other hand, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the above evidence, ① the Plaintiff appears to have urged the Defendant, the representative of the instant company, to pay the above payment on several occasions. ② However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the instant company appears to have no means to pay the above payment, ③ The Plaintiff urged the payment again as above and demanded to pay it again, ③ The Plaintiff is not a person who has paid the above payment at a low price, and it would be good to pay it even for every month.”

arrow