beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 22,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from June 26, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
In full view of the statements in Gap 1-4 as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of the witness Eul's witness Eul's witness Eul's testimony and the whole argument, the plaintiff, at the defendant's on-site agent Eul, leased equipment among the plaintiff's own plaintiff's each plaintiff's own equipment to the Young-si C apartment repair work, ② the ice Packaging work among the D repair work in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and ③ the secondary equipment rent for the equipment (including value-added tax).
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 2.2 million from the Defendant on March 26, 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of equipment rent of KRW 22 million (=2.2 million - 2.2 million) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from June 26, 2014 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, to the day of complete payment.
As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant argues that the construction cost should be paid from B because the defendant's on-site agent is not the defendant's on-site agent, but the subcontractor who subcontracted part of the package work from the defendant.
However, according to the statements in Gap 1, 2, and 3, as of June 12, 2012, Eul submitted a field agent as the defendant's on-site agent at the time of construction work, Eul prepared a tax invoice under the name of the defendant and delivered it to the plaintiff. On March 26, 2014, 2.2.2 million won of the above equipment rent from the defendant's account under the defendant's name was remitted to the plaintiff's account. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Eul, as the defendant's on-site agent, concluded a lease contract with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.
In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.