beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,014,290 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from April 16, 2019 to May 31, 2019.
Reasons
On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to arrange labor workers for daily-service construction, such as wood trees, at the construction site operated by the Defendant. ② From around that time, the Plaintiff arranged labor workers for daily-service construction at the site of the construction site of the construction site of the building site of reinforced concrete in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, for which the Defendant contracted to construct a reinforced concrete building from the Defendant Co., Ltd., and if the Plaintiff pays his wages on a daily basis, the Plaintiff settled the mutual transaction price by paying the above substitute wages and the Plaintiff’s fee (hereinafter “wages, etc.”) to the Plaintiff on a daily basis or monthly basis; ③ The Plaintiff’s wages, etc. for construction workers arranged by the Plaintiff until January 5, 2019 are the total amount of wages, etc. 102,885,000,000 won, and the Defendant paid only half the amount of KRW 43,710 among them.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of 59,014,290 won (=102,885,000 won - 43,870,710 won) including the above wage, as sought by the Plaintiff, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 16, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and delay damages calculated at 12% per annum under the same Act from the next day to the day of full payment.
As to this, the defendant withheld and paid taxes from the amount of the above wage, etc.
Although the plaintiff alleged that if he/she arranged the miscellaneous contribution as a wood plant, a certain amount should be deducted from the above wage, etc., he/she did not submit any evidence supporting his/her assertion from the defendant, the above argument cannot be accepted.
In addition, the argument that the defendant was not paid the construction cost from the original contractor is not a legal ground for preventing the plaintiff's claim of this case.
If so, the plaintiff.