logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가단49355
용역비
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 71,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 6, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is a corporation that operates the design and supervision business of electricity, telecommunications, fire-fighting equipment, and fire-fighting equipment. On April 2015, the service contract of this case is “the service contract of this case” between the Defendant and the Defendant, a package deal business entity for the establishment business of the Yongsan Water Center in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, which was ordered by the Korea Development Corporation, with respect to electricity in the field of working design services.

A. The facts that the Plaintiff supplied design drawings, etc. under the above service contract to Korea Development Co., Ltd. on or around April 2015 are either a dispute between the parties, or the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole. According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the date of payment, to the Plaintiff, as the service charges of KRW 71.5 million, and the payment order of this case, which is the day after November 6, 2015, which is the day after the date of payment, to the day after full payment.

2. As to this, the Defendant agreed to pay the service price within the scope of the payment rate of the ordering authority under the instant service contract. The Defendant, as the Defendant received only 70% payment from the ordering authority, claiming that the amount equivalent to 30% of the service price that the Plaintiff seeks cannot be paid. However, there is no reason to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion that the fixed payment rate of the ordering authority is only 70%.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.

arrow