beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,300,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 9, 2017 to December 17, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded each design service contract with the Defendant orally as shown in the attached Table, and completed the design service accordingly.
Meanwhile, with respect to the services listed in the No. 1 attached Table 1, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remaining service amounting to KRW 4 million (= KRW 61.8 million), KRW 2 million in relation to the services listed in the No. 12; KRW 15 million in relation to the services listed in the No. 15 in relation to the No. 12; KRW 2.5 million in relation to the services listed in the No. 15 in relation to the No. 18; KRW 1.5 million in relation to the services listed in the No. 19 in relation to the No. 19; and KRW 31 million in relation to the services listed in the No. 19, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remaining service amounting to KRW 67.98 million in relation to the service amount (= KRW 92.8 million in relation to value-added tax - KRW 31.8 million) and delay damages thereon to the Plaintiff.
The claim amount stated in the purport of the claim is "69,80,000 won", but on August 20, 2018, the Plaintiff finances the service amount and the payment details of each of the design services of this case, and finally arranged the amount claimed against the Defendant as "67,980,000 won."
B. Determination 1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to prove that the Plaintiff completed the pertinent design service, such as structural calculations, with respect to each service payment claim listed in the table Nos. 4, 8, and 16 attached Table Nos. 4, 8, and 16, and in particular, with respect to the service listed in the table No. 8 attached Table No. 8, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the design service contract was concluded with the content as alleged by the Plaintiff, or that the design service was completed accordingly, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is without merit (not so,).
Even if any, 2.
B. It is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription of the service payment claim has expired in the case of this part of the service like the design service as described in paragraph 3. This part of the Plaintiff’s this part.