logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.11.28 2018가단270813
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 67,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from December 29, 2018 to May 31, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who has been awarded a contract from C and D (hereinafter “instant owner”) to construct a multi-family house E on the ground (hereinafter “instant construction”) in the name of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and actually performed the construction work, and the Defendant is the F Co., Ltd.’s representative director.

B. On March 26, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the instant owner and completed the construction work in the name of F in the name of KRW 639,00,000 for the construction cost (hereinafter “instant contract”) and completed the construction work.

However, the owner of the instant case rejected the payment of the remainder of the construction price to the Plaintiff as a matter of defect repair.

C. On July 4, 2017, the instant building owner drafted a notarial deed and written agreement with the Plaintiff. The instant building owner: “The instant building owner confirmed that the balance of the construction price of KRW 639,00,000,000, which was not paid, is currently 67,500,000, and shall be paid to the F by March 31, 2018, and shall be paid by a notary public to the F by March 31, 2018; “The instant notarial deed” (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) No. 458, 2017, the Plaintiff and the instant building owner agreed on the defect repair on the same day, with respect to the defect repair performance of the instant construction until December 31, 2017, the instant building owner provided a written estimate for defect repair to F, and agreed on the remainder of the defect repair performance to the F, and the amount to be paid by the F (30,000,000).”

On the other hand, the plaintiff prepared a notarial deed and agreement with the owner of the instant building, and the original contract of this case is under F.

arrow