logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.30 2015가단189
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 4, 2014 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the cause of the claim, the entry in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant was awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 1180,000,000 from Gap on April 4, 2014 to "construction works for automobile maintenance works" in the construction cost of KRW 1180,000,000, the plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from the defendant around May 2014 for the construction cost of the said new construction works (the construction work in the field of machinery) in the amount of KRW 38,50,000 (the payment in three installments on September 26, 2014), the plaintiff was recognized to have completed the said subcontracted construction works on or around September 26, 2014, and the plaintiff received the construction cost of KRW 15,000,000 from the defendant.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 23,50,000 won (=38,500,000 won - 15,000,000 won) and damages for delay of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 4, 2014 to the day of full payment, which the plaintiff seeks after the completion date of construction work.

2. The defendant's defense was proved that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to make a direct payment of KRW 20,000,000, which was the amount of the construction price calculated by deducting the additional tax from KRW 23,500,000, which was the balance of the construction price, to be directly received from A, who is not the defendant, and thus, the defendant is not obligated to pay KRW 20,000,000 out of the balance of the construction price. However, there is no evidence to prove that there was a direct payment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the defendant.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

arrow