logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.08 2016가단32880 (1)
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 12, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a standard contract for private construction works that the Defendant would receive from the Defendant, setting the contract amount of KRW 28,000,000 and the construction period from May 11, 2015 to May 14, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project in accordance with the instant contract, and the Defendant drafted and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of payment for the construction cost payment of KRW 28,000,000 to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2016 (hereinafter “each letter of payment”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 28,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 12, 2017 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion and the official seal affixed to the instant contract of this case and each of the instant contracts are the Defendant’s official seal. However, as the Plaintiff was unable to receive the construction cost of this case from the owner of the building, C arbitrarily prepared and delivered the instant contract of this case and the instant written statement to the Plaintiff without obtaining lawful authorization from the Defendant, and thus, C’s claim based thereon is unlawful.

(2) As long as the formation of the judgment document is recognized as authentic, the court shall express its intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement.

arrow