logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.24 2019가단231642
공사대금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 90,500,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from August 3, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

On November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 100 million with respect to the primary and secondary construction works in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The construction period of the primary construction works is from November 21, 2018 to December 31, 2018; the intermediate payment of KRW 45 million to December 7, 2018; the intermediate payment of KRW 36.5 million to December 21, 2018; the remainder of KRW 18 million to December 31, 2018; the remainder of KRW 200,000 to December 31, 2018; the remainder of KRW 18 million to KRW 30,000,000 to KRW 31,50,000; the remainder of the construction works from November 21, 2018 to KRW 301,50,018; the remainder of the construction works; and the remainder of KRW 2018,5018,00,00,00,00.1.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is a person who received KRW 19.5 million out of the total construction cost of each of the construction costs of this case.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 90.5 million (20 million - 19.5 million) and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

As to this, since the plaintiff completed each construction of this case, there were defects such as floor soundproof, toilet drainage and water sampling, water leakage, floor floor, wall surface, ceiling height imbalance, frat, frating, frating, frating, and frating, etc. in the wall, the defendant asserts that the defendant may refuse the payment of the construction cost corresponding to the plaintiff's warranty liability and default liability. Thus, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the above defects after the completion of each construction of this case, the defendant's above assertion is without merit without merit.

Therefore, the defendant 9.9

arrow