logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2019.01.30 2018가단3070
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,400,000 as well as 6% per annum from June 2, 2017 to March 26, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant for construction cost of KRW 81,400,000 from the Defendant for the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works located in the said Section C1st, and completed the said construction.

B. By June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant out of the said construction price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 31,400,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 2, 2017 to March 26, 2018, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) subcontracted the above construction work from F Co., Ltd. upon the Plaintiff’s introduction; and (b) the Defendant also failed to pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff because the said F Co., Ltd. did not pay the original contract price to the Defendant; (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot claim the payment of the said construction

Even if the defendant's above assertion is true, it cannot be asserted against the defendant's claim for the payment of the above construction cost. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.

arrow