logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.20 2014가합50618
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,880,563 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from February 8, 2014 to June 10, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which entered into a construction contract, announced a public tender for the construction project for the project to improve the disaster risk district in office in office, pursuant to Article 2012-708 of the Public Notice of May 9, 2012, and the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant on May 30, 2012, with the contract price of KRW 268,441,00, and the construction period from June 5, 2012 to September 2, 2012.

B. On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant to temporarily suspend the instant construction work on the grounds that consultation with the National Emergency Management Agency was held on July 19, 2012, and on August 21, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant construction work should be suspended on the ground that it reflected the period of design change due to the consultation on compensation for additional incorporated land and the change in the method of construction. Accordingly, on August 21, 2012 to September 30, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded the instant construction contract with the Defendant to temporarily suspend the construction from the date of August 21, 2012, and to extend the construction period from August 22, 2012 to October 13, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded the instant construction contract with the National Emergency Management Agency to extend the construction period by 200,000 to 20,0000.

3. On October 29, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the period of temporary suspension will be extended by November 15, 2012 on the grounds that the period required was reflected in the requirements period following an additional consultation on the change of construction method with the National Emergency Management Agency. Accordingly, the Plaintiff made the instant construction period between the Defendant and the Defendant on October 29, 2012.

arrow