beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 47,30,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 14, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs A and 4, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant on July 27, 2016 with respect to the glass construction among the construction works of a new building in a scenic spot, and completed the subcontracted construction, and the Defendant was unable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 47,300,000,000, out of the subcontract price.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 47.3 million and the delay damages for such payment, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the subcontract price was stipulated as “payment within 15 days from the date on which the owner was due” as a condition for the settlement of the subcontract price (hereinafter “instant sub-section”), and that it did not comply with the settlement terms, since the owner did not receive the payment of the construction price from the owner.
In the case of a juristic act to which the subsidiary was attached, it shall be deemed as a condition in the case where it is reasonable to view that the subsidiary will not perform the obligation unless the facts indicated in the subsidiary have occurred. In the case where it is reasonable to view that the subsidiary will not perform the obligation in the case where the facts indicated have occurred as well as in the case where it is confirmed that the non-performance of the obligation does not occur, it shall be deemed as a definite time limit. Accordingly, in the case where certain facts are attached to the subsidiary as to the repayment of the obligation already borne, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed as having been postponed the time limit, and the time limit shall expire when the facts have occurred
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da16643, May 14, 2009). However, the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows.