logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.07.01 2015가단594
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay 29,900,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from January 16, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for manufacturing and installing the furnitures, small products, etc. necessary for the Gangwon-do Model Epis (hereinafter “instant Model Epis”) located B (hereinafter “instant contract”) in total construction cost of KRW 34,00,000 (value-added tax separate) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. B. Prior to July 4, 2014 under the instant contract, the Plaintiff produced, installed, and provided the furniture, props, etc. necessary for the instant model house, and the Defendant opened the said model house on July 4, 2014.

(Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts finding as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 7,500,000,000 for the construction cost of KRW 37,40,000 under the contract of this case (i.e., KRW 34,00,000 for value added tax of KRW 3,400 for value added tax of KRW 3,40,000 for the Plaintiff’s person who was already paid, and the delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and the summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) is a contract under which the purpose of the contract can not be achieved unless the contract is performed in accordance with the nature of the contract or by the parties’ declaration of intent by July 4, 2014. The upper part of the household supplied by the Plaintiff was produced in the state of natural rain, etc. The upper part of the household supplied by the Plaintiff was not produced in accordance with the drawing. Accordingly, the Defendant’s decision to terminate the project and removed the model house inside the Plaintiff’s business.

Ultimately, since the plaintiff's performance of obligation is an incomplete performance that is not different from the complete performance, there is no obligation to pay the above contract to the defendant.

(2) We examine the judgment, and the Plaintiff’s model of this case is necessary before July 4, 2014.

arrow