beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 73,915,700 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from August 26, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
From June 9, 2010 to November 2015, the Plaintiff had a claim for construction cost of KRW 188,355,700 upon receiving a request from the Defendant for the tea color construction work, the guidance sign and prop installation work, the traffic sign installation work, etc., and had a claim for construction cost of KRW 188,35,700. The Defendant paid KRW 114,440,000 in total from July 9, 2015, including payment of KRW 9,400,000 from July 9, 2015. The fact that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 73,915,70 in total does not conflict between the parties, or that it did not pay KRW 73,915,70 in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 3, and 6.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 73,915,700 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 26, 2016 to the date of full payment after the delivery of the instant complaint, barring special circumstances to the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s argument and the Defendant’s argument ① Although the Plaintiff claimed KRW 12,90,030 to the Defendant for B Corporation through the transaction statement dated June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted KRW 22,172,260 as the claim price on June 30, 2013 in this case.
In other words, 9,173,230 won is excessively claimed.
② The assertion: Although the Defendant paid KRW 16 million to the Plaintiff on July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff did not deduct it.
③ argument: The Plaintiff claimed KRW 4,073,850 through the transaction statement dated June 30, 2012, however, 557,700 among them is the Plaintiff’s claim for double payment of the cost of traffic sign manufacturing by the Jinyang Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Jinyang Industry”).
On the other hand, since the defendant remitted 4 million won to the defendant on July 2, 2012, the 483,850 won (4 million won - (4,073,850 won - 557,70 won) should be additionally deducted.
④ The Plaintiff claimed KRW 913,00 through the transaction statement dated April 30, 2013, but this is the Plaintiff’s claim for double payment of the traffic sign price for the Jinyang Industry and the guidance sign price for the danger zone.
All claims are excessive.