logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.12.17 2015가단5018
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,00,000, and 5% per annum from June 25, 2015 to December 17, 2015, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 25, 2014, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s construction of a multi-household house C (hereinafter “instant multi-household house”) from the Defendant on December 25, 2014, which is the title, glass, and metal construction (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) From December 25, 2014 to February 28, 2015, the construction period was determined and contracted as KRW 88 million for construction cost (including KRW 80,000,000 for supply price, and value-added tax). B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 for each of the construction cost in the instant case, KRW 1) January 19, 2015, KRW 22,000 for KRW 30,00 for March 20, 2015, KRW 30,000 for KRW 5,000 for each of the construction cost.

(Total 5.7 million won, among which the value of supply is 5.5 million won, and value-added tax is 2 million won, there is no dispute between the parties).

The Plaintiff continued the instant construction, and the representative director D of the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on June 1, 2015 by the Changwon District Court Daowon District Court (No. 36859, Jun. 1, 2015).

Facts that there is no dispute between the parties for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff received value-added tax of KRW 2,50,000,000 from the Defendant separately from the value of the instant construction work. 2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,50,000,000, which deducts KRW 5,500,000 from the value of the instant construction work.

B. 1) Determination of the first construction cost as to the construction work has not been completed if the construction work was suspended during the course and the scheduled last process was not completed. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction work is completed, but it is only that there is a defect in the object, if the main structure is to be repaired due to incomplete work.

arrow