beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 30,960,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from January 1, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs a wholesale and retail business with the trade name of B, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs an indoor decoration business, etc.
B. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 19,800,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from August 21, 2015 to September 10, 2015 with respect to the Suwon Construction among the new Kimhae Construction Work (hereinafter “instant Kimhae Construction”).
C. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 67,100,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from August 21, 2015 to September 10, 2015 with respect to D D Construction (hereinafter “D”).
Although the Plaintiff completed the instant Kimhae and D Construction, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 7,860,00 among the construction cost of the instant Kimhae and KRW 23,100,000 among the construction cost of the instant D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,960,00 (i.e., KRW 7,860,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 1, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order (i.e., KRW 23,100,000).
B. The Defendant alleged that the shortage of KRW 25,543,480 was occurred as a result of the settlement of actual quantity of the instant DD, but the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone are insufficient to recognize the lack of objective actual quantity of the instant DD, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.