beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) 7,460,00 won to Plaintiff A; (b) 14,00,000 won to Plaintiff B; (c) 5,00,000 won to Plaintiff C; and (d) 4,200 won to Plaintiff D.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs received a subcontract from the Defendant in relation to the construction of a multi-family house with the fourth floor above the G ground (hereinafter “instant construction”) and completed their respective construction parts.
B. Specifically, Plaintiff A received a subcontract for the interior decoration part, Plaintiff B’s waterproof and unclaimed construction part, Plaintiff C’s steel hold and glass construction part, Plaintiff D’s facility work part, Plaintiff E’s double construction part, and Plaintiff E’s double construction part.
C. On May 20, 2014, H, who had overall control over the instant construction, drafted a payment note to the effect that each of the accrued construction costs of KRW 7,460,000 remains, KRW 14,000 for the Plaintiff B, KRW 5,000 for the Plaintiff C, KRW 4,200,000 for the Plaintiff D, KRW 5,106,000 for the Plaintiff E, and KRW 5,100 for the Plaintiff E, and that it will be paid until June 30, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 7 (including a branch number, if any), and the purport of the whole pleading
2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff A 7,460,000 won, the plaintiff B 14,000,000 won, the plaintiff C 5,200,000 won, the plaintiff D 4,200,000 won, and 5,106,000 won, and 20% of the annual amount under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for each of the above amounts after completion of their respective construction parts, as the above plaintiffs seek after completion of their respective construction parts, from May 31, 2014 to December 16, 2014, the original copy of the payment order of this case was delivered to the defendant from May 31, 2014 to December 16, 2014, and the third day to the day of full payment.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' respective claims of this case are with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.