beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 198,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 11, 2015 to November 3, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant, on August 27, 2014, decided to remodel the building C’s ground as a medical care source, and paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on August 27, 2014 as a service contract.
(2) On December 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a successful bid in the auction procedure; and (b) concluded a contract on January 3, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to remodel the said building as a medical care source; (c) the construction cost was KRW 1,008,00,000; and (d) the construction period was between January 3, 2015 and April 2015.
(3) The Plaintiff completed the remodeling project on April 10, 2015, and the Defendant operated the Medical Care Center from April 20, 2015.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff given a subcontract to Taesung C&C and E (the representative of the F&C) to have him take charge of part of the construction work, such as machinery and equipment and windows. The Defendant directly paid KRW 320,000,000 to Taesung C&C and KRW 470,000,000 to E.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-15, witness G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. (1) The remuneration under a contract shall be paid at the same time as the delivery of the completed object (Article 665(1) of the Civil Act), and in ordinary cases, where the completion of the last process scheduled under the contract is completed and the main part is completed, barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the object is completed, and it shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Act concerning warranty liability, such as a defect of the object or a claim for the completion of the remaining work, in accordance with the intent of the parties and the purport of the law. In such a case, whether the last process scheduled has been completed should be determined objectively in light of the specific contents of the contract and the good faith
Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29217 Decided September 23, 2004 and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29217 Decided April 13, 2012