beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,313,918 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 25, 2018 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From August 21, 2017 to October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied building materials such as 129,313,918 won (including value-added tax) at the Defendant’s site of the interior works in the Dental Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “CUD K”), STUDK.S, TUDK, TUDK, TUDK, TUDK, tinboard, cret, RNNNNERK, and CRNERK.
B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million on August 17, 2017, KRW 20 million on September 1, 2017, KRW 20 million on September 1, 2017, KRW 10 million on September 22, 2017, KRW 15 million on October 2, 2017, KRW 14 million on October 30, 2017, KRW 79 million on October 30, 2017.
【Ground for recognition】An absence of dispute, and description of Gap 1 and 2
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 amount of KRW 50,313,918 (=129,313,918 - 79,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 25, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is clear that the copy of the complaint in this case is served on the Defendant.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant filed a claim for the construction cost against E (Seoul Central District Court 2018Da503520) which the Defendant filed against the head of the Dvalescent Hospital with the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2018dadan503520) and filed an application for appraisal, and filed an application for appraisal, to pay the price for the goods after receiving payment from E as the result of the appraisal. However, in light of the appraisal of the above written application (as of November 5, 2018), it appears that E would be a matter of the Defendant’s unconstruction and unconstruction failure. Even if the Plaintiff’s supply of the construction materials is not a KS standard product, it is difficult to conclude that the defect of the construction materials supplied by the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is recognized solely on the ground that the appraisal of the said lawsuit was not a KS standard product.