logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.15 2015가단5381303
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,475,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from December 19, 2015 to November 15, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant and Gangnam-gu Seoul as follows: (a) the construction cost of KRW 202,50,000 and the construction period of KRW 1/1,000 from November 12, 2014 to November 30, 2014; and (b) the contract amount of penalty for delay; (c) the payment method of the construction cost of KRW 30,000 and KRW 50,000 in the first intermediate payment at the time of application for the term ingredients; (d) the second intermediate payment of KRW 50,00,000 in the second intermediate payment of KRW 50,00,00 in the second intermediate payment of KRW 32,500,00 in the third intermediate payment, and the remainder of KRW 30,000,000 in the event of delivery of the object after the completion of construction works.

B. The Plaintiff performed the instant interior works, and completed construction on December 10, 2014, and delivered E-store stores to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff received only a total of KRW 160,00,000 from the Defendant on October 13, 2014, among the construction cost of KRW 202,50,000,000, and KRW 80,000 on November 13, 2014, and KRW 50,000,000 on November 21, 2014, and KRW 160,00,000. The Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 117,00,00,000 on May 1, 2014, separately from the instant construction contract, as the construction cost of KRW 10,00,00,00, KRW 00, KRW 00, KRW 200, KRW 300,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 40,000, KRW 200, KRW 30,000, KRW 30,000.

The delay of construction completion compared to the completion date under the construction contract of this case is not due to the cause attributable to the plaintiff, but due to the delay in the work processing of the agency issuing the certificate of completion of fire-fighting as introduced by the defendant, so there is no reason for the defendant'

Therefore, the defendant.

arrow