logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.03.03 2014가단9378
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,902,358 as well as the interest rate from July 2, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Claim against the defendant A;

(a) Indication of claim: Claim for the price of commodities under a contract for the supply of stone;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants on July 2013 to supply stone at the D construction site located in Naju-si, as well as the Plaintiff’s supply of stone equivalent to KRW 60,902,350 at the aforementioned construction site from July 19, 2013 to August 30, 2013, respectively.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is a person who received 30,000,000 won of the price of the building stones from the passenger landscape of the corporation.

Therefore, according to the records on the delivery date of the instant payment order for Defendant B, jointly and severally with Defendant A, KRW 30,902,358 (=60,902,350 won - KRW 30,000,000) and the records on the delivery date of the instant payment order for Defendant A, Defendant B may recognize the fact that the payment order for Defendant A was served on July 1, 2014 and that the recipient was indicated as “child B”. Defendant B also stated that the payment order was already served on the written payment order for July 15, 2014, and in light of such circumstances, the delivery date of the payment order for Defendant B was considered as July 1, 2014.

From July 2, 2014 to the date of full payment, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum.

B. As to the determination of Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted that it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim because the passenger landscape corporation paid KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff the price of the above stone goods. However, as seen earlier, even if the amount of the above amount subrogated by the passenger landscape corporation among the price of the stone goods is deducted, Defendant B’s obligation to pay the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B’s obligation to pay the unpaid goods.

arrow