logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.03.31 2015가단5872
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,700,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 20% per annum from September 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff received a contract with the Defendant for construction cost of KRW 363,00,000 (including value-added tax) from June 22, 2012 to May 30, 2013; and (2) during the implementation of the said construction, the Plaintiff additionally implemented the construction work equivalent to KRW 29,70,000 (including value-added tax) exceeding the terms and conditions of the said contract between June 1, 2012 and November 2013.

3) The Plaintiff was paid KRW 363,00,000, which is the original construction cost, from Ansan City, the ordering authority, but did not receive KRW 29,70,000, which is the additional construction cost, from the Defendant. [each entry in the evidence of subparagraphs A and 7, which are grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff additional construction cost of KRW 29,700,000 and delayed damages, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff and the defendant did not conclude an additional construction contract according to the design change.

The plaintiff may demand the conclusion of the modified contract in writing with the signature or seal affixed thereto, but there is no demand to do so.

After the completion of construction, the Plaintiff demanded the payment for the completion of the additional construction works more than 10 months, and issued the electronic tax invoice after approximately 2 months thereafter.

B. A thorough examination of the Defendant’s assertion may not constitute a ground for refusing the payment of the construction cost of the additional construction works executed by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is groundless.

3. If so, the Defendant’s statutory interest rate of KRW 29,700,000 for additional construction costs and KRW 20% per annum from September 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as the Plaintiff seeks, shall be the legal interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

arrow