beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 36,200,000, and 6% per annum from January 10, 2015 to March 7, 2016, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction works (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would receive a contract for the production and installation works of a semi-fash-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-fag-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g
B. On January 2015, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work as a firstman.
C. Around December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for KRW 21,00,000 among the instant construction price, and received KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant around December 4, 2014, and issued a tax invoice for KRW 21,00,000 to the Defendant around December 31, 2014, but did not receive the remainder of the construction price.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, 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 the Plaintiff the construction cost of 362,00,000,000 won (the construction cost of 42,00,000 won - value added tax of 10,000,000 won for the term payment) and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 10, 2015 to March 7, 2016, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, from the date following the day when the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, to March 7, 2016, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, barring any special circumstance.
(Plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay from January 1, 2015, but the Plaintiff’s completion date of the instant construction work is January 1, 2015, and thus, it does not accept the damages for delay before the completion date of the instant construction work.
The judgment of the defendant 1 on the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff did not complete the test operation of the anti-fash-fashion season established in C, and the plaintiff requested repair on the ground of the defect of the anti-fash-fashion season, but the plaintiff did so.