beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as annual 6% from May 31, 2015 to November 3, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 5, 2015, the Plaintiff was a person engaged in an engineering work. On April 5, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the said work by concluding a contract with the Defendant on April 30, 2015, by setting the construction cost of KRW 110,000,000 (excluding value-added tax), the down payment of KRW 30,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the payment of the remainder within seven days from the date of receipt of the object, and the period of construction from April 5, 2015 to April 30, 2015.
B. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 in total, including the construction cost of KRW 30,000,000,000 on April 25, 2015, and KRW 40,000,000.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,000,000 (i.e., KRW 110,000,000 - KRW 40,000) and damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 31, 2015 until November 3, 2015, which is the day after 30 days from the date of completion of the instant construction (it is reasonable to deem that delivery was made around April 30, 2015, which is the date of completion recognized earlier) and from the next day until November 3, 2015, the original copy of the instant payment order, from the date of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.
B. The defendant's assertion that since multiple defects occurred in the construction works executed by the plaintiff, this part of the defect repair cost and the cost of restoration to E and electric facilities damaged by the plaintiff during the construction of this case should be deducted from the balance of the construction of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.