logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.06.29 2017나6164 (1)
매매대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a company that manufactures elevators and operates equipment business, and the defendant is a construction company.

On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale and installation of elevators (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant (formerly, the Mutual Complex Construction Company”) as follows:

Total contract amount: The place where an elevator is installed at KRW 33,00,000 (including value-added tax): The period for payment (the date of completion of installation): MPR - 11 man on May 30, 2016 - CO.60- 7/7, and 100 on a contract deposit: KRW 9,900,000 on a contract, part payment, KRW 19,800,000 on a material carrying-in price, KRW 3,300,000 on a material carrying-in price, and on a written inspection.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 4,950,00 on May 10, 2016, KRW 4,950,000 on the 17th of the same month, KRW 10,000,000 on July 11, 2016, and KRW 19,90,000 on the aggregate, and the Plaintiff was issued a certificate of passing an inspection on the instant elevator by the Korea Elevator Safety Corporation on October 13, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 4 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 13,100,000 won remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 19,900,000 from the installation cost of the elevator of this case 33,00,000 (hereinafter “the installation cost of the machine”) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as requested by the plaintiff from August 29, 2017 to the date of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

3. The judgment of the defendant on the third party's third party's repayment defense is that the defendant, the owner of the building in which the elevator of this case is installed, B, the remainder of the installation cost.

arrow