beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay 5,00,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 18, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the claim was completed upon receiving a request from the Defendant for design service related to the new construction of Busan District District Co., Ltd., and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 88,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the design service cost of KRW 143,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 55,000,000 has not yet been paid. Thus, barring any other circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid design service cost of KRW 5,00,000 and delay damages therefrom,
2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion
A. Around December 16, 2013, D, the husband of the Defendant claiming that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 143,000,000 to the Plaintiff not later than December 31, 2013 (Evidence A (Evidence A 1). However, D, by preparing the above commitment, took over the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff with the discharge of liability, and the Defendant did not have any obligation to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. Whether the assumption of an obligation is overlapped is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the contract for acceptance of the obligation, and if it is not clear whether the assumption of the obligation is the acceptance of the obligation in the contract for acceptance of the obligation, or the overlapping acceptance is deemed to have been taken over in duplicate.
With respect to this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that D has discharged the Defendant from the obligation to borrow the loan from the Plaintiff solely on the records of health account, Gap evidence No. 1, and evidence submitted by the Defendant, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
(D) The argument regarding the claim amounting to KRW 70,000,000 against the plaintiff related to the construction work of the F Hotel located in Busan, Daegu, Busan, on the premise that the claim of this case was discharged from the obligation of this case. 3. The plaintiff's claim for the decision is justified.