beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 117,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from March 11, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Fact-finding;
A. The Plaintiff has a claim equivalent to KRW 171,013,709 based on the payment order in the Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Ra99 against the passenger industry development corporation (hereinafter Nonparty Company).
B. The non-party company has a claim for the construction price of this case equivalent to KRW 377,00,000 against the defendant.
(C) The Defendant recognized that the construction cost of the instant case should be paid to the non-party company on the first day of pleading, regardless of whether the construction work is completed, with respect to the non-party company, as a claim for the construction cost related to the steel framed among the new construction of warehouse facilities on the land outside
The Plaintiff was determined to seize and collect the claim for the instant construction price as the claim amounting to KRW 171,013,709, the amount of the claim based on the payment order under the above payment order, as the Cheongju District Court Branch 2013TTB539.
(Service to the Defendant on March 4, 2013, and March 29, 2013). [Service to the Defendant on March 29, 2013] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 17,000,000 won out of the above collection amount of KRW 171,013,709 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 11, 2015 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff.
B. On the Defendant’s argument, the gist of the Defendant’s argument is to set off the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff [the right to claim reimbursement of the litigation cost amounting to KRW 5,408,211 on the Cheongju District Court 2013Gahap1129 case (the final decision on the amount of litigation cost as of June 9, 2014, 201)] against the Plaintiff on the amount equal to that of the Plaintiff’s claim.
② Since the claims for the construction price of this case competes with seizure, collection order, provisional seizure, etc., the entire amount to be collected cannot be paid to the Plaintiff.
(2) The Defendant’s collection obligee (Plaintiff) regarding the assertion.