beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 7,382,069,045 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from January 1, 2011 to May 28, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In light of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the defendant: (i) obtained a new construction permit on August 20, 2002 for neighborhood living facilities and apartment buildings (hereinafter "the building in this case") on and around November 2005, entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the said new construction work (hereinafter "the construction in this case") at KRW 8.677,68 billion; (ii) the defendant entered into a revised contract with the plaintiff on January 5, 2007, stating that the above construction amount shall be increased to KRW 10.191.5 billion; and (iii) on June 15, 2007, the plaintiff prepared a revised contract with the defendant on June 15, 2007, together with the certificate of the execution of the construction work in this case’s amount payable at KRW 4.1,985,1300,000,000; and (iv) on June 15, 2007, the defendant did not pay the construction price to the plaintiff.
6. 28. It can be recognized that the document confirming that the unpaid construction price is KRW 7,382,069,045, and that it will be paid by the end of December 2010, which would be expected to be normalized.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid construction price of KRW 7,382,069,045 and damages for delay calculated by applying each annual rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 1, 2011 to May 28, 2015, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint from the date following the due date specified in the agreement concluded by June 28, 2010, and from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the argument of the Intervenor joining the Defendant
A. 1) As to the assertion of extinctive prescription, the argument of the Defendant joining the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price expired by prescription, the Plaintiff asserts that the prescription has been interrupted due to provisional attachment. 2) As to the allegation of extinctive prescription, the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each of the written evidence Nos. 4 and 7.