beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,330,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from January 12, 2016 to June 20, 2016.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the installation of B apartment line pipelines (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the Defendant on December 2, 2013 at KRW 159,170,00 (including value-added tax) and completed the construction work by January 11, 2016, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 138,840,000 from the Defendant as the construction cost.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 20,330,000 (i.e., construction cost of KRW 159,170,000 - KRW 138,840,000) and 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 12, 2016 to June 20, 2016, the day following the completion date of the instant construction, which is the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the amount claimed by the Plaintiff since the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the principal contractor of the instant construction project (hereinafter “the treatment industry development company”), and the contract amount was reduced by 25.1%. Therefore, given that the instant contract amount was reduced by 25.1%, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff in excess of the contract amount.
According to the statement of No. 2-1 and No. 2, the defendant entered into a modified contract with the non-party company around October 23, 2015, and according to this, the fact that the existing construction cost has been reduced can be recognized.
However, the validity of the above change contract is only to the non-party company and the defendant who are the parties to the contract, and unless the plaintiff who is the third party agrees to the change, it cannot be said that the contract of this case (Evidence A 1) is effective to the plaintiff, and the contract of this case is set at a fixed amount.
Therefore, it is true.