beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 34 million won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from May 13, 2020 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
In each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the entire argument is visible; ① the Plaintiff, who operates the Changho Construction Business with the name of “C,” was supplied with sewage for the construction of the building for the land of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from the Defendant’s father around May 2018, and was not paid the construction cost of KRW 80 million after the completion of the construction; ② the Plaintiff was supplied with sewage for the construction of the F Building from D, but was not paid the construction cost of KRW 30 million after the completion of the construction; ③ the Plaintiff was paid the construction cost of KRW 30 million after the completion of the construction; ② the Plaintiff was paid the construction payment of KRW 10 million between the Defendant and the Defendant on December 4, 2018; ② the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on KRW 1,100,000,000,000 in lieu of the payment of the construction cost under the above paragraph; ④ the Plaintiff thereafter, the Defendant or D on the same date:
7. It is recognized that the payment of KRW 19 million in total and KRW 76 million has been made.
According to these facts, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, instead of paying the original construction cost that was not received from the Defendant’s father D, setting the unpaid construction cost of KRW 110,00,000 as a deposit for lease, and thereafter, was paid KRW 76,00,000 from the Defendant or D.
If so, the defendant who promised to pay the construction price through the lease contract is obligated to pay the remaining construction price of KRW 34 million and delayed damages to the plaintiff.
The defendant is entitled to pay the construction price directly to the plaintiff by preparing the lease contract at will by D.
There is no promise, and also, on July 30, 2019, the Plaintiff renounced all the rights stipulated in the above contract by returning the original lease contract to the Plaintiff.
I asserts.
However, the contents and descriptions of the original of the lease contract submitted at the second hearing date, and the lease contract was prepared, such as the evidence A No. 4.