beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (appointed party) KRW 10,340,00 as well as the interest rate from September 5, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff A”).
A. (1) On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff A and the Defendant enter into an entrustment contract for construction waste disposal (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the following terms: (a) the unit price, etc. for the collection and transportation of construction waste generated at the construction site of Busan FF Daegu Corporation ordered by Plaintiff A and the Defendant around September 21, 2017;
A) The Plaintiff entered into a contract. Waste synthetic resin: 10,00 won per ton (30 tons per ton of waste concrete: 300,000 tons per ton (a mixture of 100 tons per ton of waste: 10,000 tons per ton (e.g. 50 tons per ton of waste): Plaintiff A performed the collection and transportation of construction waste generated at the aforementioned construction site from September 21, 2017 to December 30, 2017 under the instant contract.
3) However, Plaintiff A did not receive KRW 10,340,00, out of the expenses for the collection and transportation of the above wastes. 【The entries in Evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 3, as well as the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments based on recognition.
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 10,340,000 payable to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 5, 2018 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the Plaintiff A, from September 5, 2018 to the day of complete payment.
2. The Appointer D’s claim asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the aforementioned KRW 11,00,000,000 to the Appointer D as well as damages for delay, even though the Defendant entered into an agreement on the payment of the rent for the lease of bits with the Defendant and leased bits at the construction site of the new construction site.
The evidence submitted by the Appointer D alone is insufficient to recognize that the Appointer D entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the payment of the rent of equipment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.