beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 76,43,500 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from May 4, 2012 to September 25, 2014.
Reasons
In fact, the Plaintiff is a person who engages in construction machinery rental business while owning CY 1225 tons of type LTM, 225 tons of size, and 194-type German laps (hereinafter “instant laps”), and the Defendant is a person who engages in construction machinery manufacturing, wholesale, repair business, etc. under the trade name of “D”.
After purchasing the term of this case on June 2, 2004 and completing the ownership transfer registration, the Plaintiff entrusted the operation and management of the term of this case to E and F. On April 27, 2009, while the term of this case was in the operation of the term of this case, the concrete floor of the term of this case was destroyed by the destruction of the concrete floor of the term of this case, which was installed with the part of the extension of the term of this case, coming from the extension of the term of this case to the extension of the term of this case.
E on May 17, 2009, requested the Defendant to repair the term of this case, and the Defendant completed repair on October 2009, and around that time, adjusted E and repair expenses to KRW 222,428,00 (excluding value-added tax).
On November 3, 2011, the Defendant agreed to hold 222,480,00 won and pay the remainder of 199,389,800 won to the Plaintiff when receiving a claim for KRW 421,869,80 as repair cost at the auction procedure for the instant season. However, on May 3, 2012, the Defendant received only KRW 222,428,00 as repair cost and value-added tax thereon from the sales price for the instant period.
Detailed details of the repair cost of KRW 22,428,00 claimed by the Defendant are as shown in attached Table 1.
【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the repair cost claimed by the defendant was set excessively. Since the appropriate repair cost is the same as the statement of the plaintiff’s argument No. 2, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was the total amount of repair cost of KRW 42,828,00,00, the original amount of the reasonable repair cost of KRW 42,828,00,000, but thereafter, the plaintiff No. 2.