beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 300,000,000 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 2013, Defendant C and Defendant D, the owner of Chungcheongnam-nam Budget E and F land, ordered H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) to construct a new building on each of the above lands (hereinafter “instant building”) around the following day.
(B) from the next day, the original contract of this case is referred to as the "original contract of this case"
The construction work based on the instant prime contract was performed upon delegation from H, and the Defendant B (it was registered as an intra-company director on June 25, 2014 on the H’s registry and was dismissed on March 15, 2016) performed upon delegation from H.
C. around May 2014, Defendant B subcontracted to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 300 million of the cost of the construction project based on the instant prime contract.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract”) d.
Defendant C and D obtained approval for the use of the instant building on September 15, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness J's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion of the claim completed all the construction work under the instant subcontract, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the subcontract price of KRW 300 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 27, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the copy of the instant complaint was served on Defendant B.
(b) Judgment by service based on which recognition is applicable (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C and D
A. Although the summary of the 1st argument regarding the assertion regarding the guarantee obligation is indicated as the guarantor and the owner J of H and the owner J as the guarantor, in substance, the defendant C and D, the actual owner, shall be deemed as the guarantor.
Therefore, the defendant C and D are the surety under the subcontract of this case.