logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2020.12.09 2018가단1453
공사대금
Text

The defendant paid KRW 138,04,00 to the plaintiff and 6% per annum from June 28, 2018 to October 26, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of the construction machinery rental business, and the limited liability company C (hereinafter “C”) is a company established for the purpose of collecting land aggregates.

B. Since around 2016, C obtained permission to extract aggregate from Namwon-si and eight parcels (hereinafter “instant aggregate extraction site”) from Namwon-si, Namwon-si, and extracted aggregate therefrom.

C. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant loaned KRW 420 million to C, and added investment profits, etc. to the above loan, around October 20, 2016, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement (C’s real operator’s debt guarantee, No. 1380, 2016, 200,000 won to C) stating that “A shall make installment payments to the Defendant, and C shall recognize and recognize that there is no objection even if a compulsory execution has been made if the repayment has been made immediately.” On February 15, 2017, the Defendant made a notarial deed of monetary loan loan agreement to the effect that “A shall be jointly and severally guaranteed by the substantive operator of C, and a notary public shall lend KRW 290,000,000 to C, and C shall make reimbursement to the Defendant by October 17, 2017, and if the repayment has not been made, the mother of the Defendant’s debt guarantee agreement to the effect that there is no objection.

C used the money borrowed from the Defendant to restore to its original state deposit (30 million won), company operation fund, and construction cost for the restoration to the original state of the aggregate extraction site.

C Around 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction with the purport that the Plaintiff will restore the aggregate extraction site to its original state (hereinafter “instant restoration”).

The Plaintiff has been implementing the instant restoration work from September 3, 2017, but failed to receive the construction cost from C, and subsequently suspended the said construction work on November 2017 and occupied the construction site, and other construction equipment is at the site of the instant restoration work.

arrow