beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 58,624,50 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from March 8, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 9, 2015, the Defendant received a contract for the installation of a D-water pipe with an order from a water supply facility located in the area of an inn city.
B. Based on the standard subcontract agreement for construction business type (No. 3) signed between the Defendant and the Defendant on June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the construction work on September 5, 2016 by executing national highways among the construction work of the above water pipe (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
C. On November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff issued electronic tax invoices (issuance Date: October 31, 2016) and received them from the Defendant with respect to the construction cost agreed to be settled to the Defendant on November 10, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 16, Eul evidence 1, Eul's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project by entering into a subcontract from the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost agreed upon with the Plaintiff. 2) As to this, the Defendant did not have concluded a subcontract with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant merely subcontracted the construction work to F on March 25, 2015, and that E, an individual entrepreneur, carried out the instant construction work together with F, and thus, the Defendant did not directly pay the Plaintiff the construction cost.
B. 1) Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. In the event of a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties, the parties’ interpretation should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da23821, Jan.