logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.06.22 2017나6637
공사대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the Tech construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a person who operates the KIKO at the first floor in Seongdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “instant KIKO”).

B. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant on March 30, 2016 for the construction cost of KRW 44,50,000 ( KRW 4,50,000,000 for interior works), March 16, 2016 for the commencement date, and April 5, 2016 for the completion date of the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), and completed the said construction project on April 5, 2016.

C. The Defendant from March 18, 2016 to the same year

4. By January 1, 200, the Plaintiff paid the construction cost of KRW 26 million in total to the Plaintiff under the instant construction contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 18.5 million won unpaid (=total construction cost of 44.5 million won - construction cost of 26 million won paid by the Defendant) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act, from April 6, 2016 to August 16, 2016, the date following the Plaintiff’s completion of the instant construction work, to which the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served to the Defendant, and from the next day to the date of full payment, it is evident that the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served to the Defendant.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As the Plaintiff did not properly perform the instant construction project, there are a large number of defects and non-construction parts in the KIKO of this case, and the Plaintiff failed to perform it even though it was ordered to install an additional luxulum to the Defendant, and repair and repair the luxum from the lux before the commencement of the construction project, and observe the scheduled completion plan for the instant construction project.

arrow