beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, holding the outstanding claim amounting to KRW 13,839,00 against the Defendant for the determination on the cause of the claim, was entrusted by the Defendant for a voluntary process, such as Aluminium Complex, to be used for the construction of a new government-type general office building, from June 2013 to November 201 of the same year, and supplied 85,283,330 won (i.e., KRW 44,93,93,300, KRW 21,06,800, KRW 6,431,70, KRW 3,51,51,90,90, KRW 8,417,200, KRW 782,430, KRW 782,430, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 29, KRW 29, Jun. 29, 2013).
9. 30. 15,000,000 won each for the same year.
8. The fact that each has received reimbursement of KRW 22,00,000 under the pretext of discretionary processing expenses does not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A and 2 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of pleadings;
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 47,122,00 won (=9,122,30 won (=13,839,00 won) - (15,00,000 won x 22,00,000 won, and less than 22,00,000 won as claimed by the plaintiff) and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the deduction of double contract processing costs should be deducted from the contract processing costs claimed by the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the contract processing costs claimed by the Plaintiff after deducting the contract processing costs claimed by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 45,730,000 (= KRW 47,122,000 - KRW 1,392,00) from the contract processing costs claimed by the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the contract processing costs claimed by the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom.
(1) The plaintiff asserted that only the remainder of the contract processing costs after deducting the contract processing costs claimed in duplicate by the defendant's assertion is the lawsuit of this case. However, the plaintiff did not submit any data supporting the above argument of the plaintiff.