beta
Text
1. Defendant Do Young Construction Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 24,585,00 and its amount from August 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Do Young Construction Corporation
A. From January 2015 to April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24,585,00 per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, to Defendant Do Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Do Construction”). As the Plaintiff leased KRW 24,585,00 of equipment rent for dump truck truck to be used at the site of construction work for building site sites for two parcels of land except B in racing-si, and the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
C. As the provisions on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings on Partial Dismissals were promulgated on September 25, 2015, and came into force from October 1, 2015, only the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the date of full payment shall be recognized, and the part in excess shall be dismissed. 2. On January 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above equipment rent to the Plaintiff on the claim against the Defendant Hansung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hansung Industrial”), upon the request of the Defendant Hansung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hansung Industrial”), from January 20, 2015 to April 30, 2015.
However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff leased the above equipment to the Defendant Hansung Industry only with the statement of the evidence Nos. 1-1 to 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff is only recognized as leasing the above equipment to Defendant Han Young Construction.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is accepted.