logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.10.17 2016가단38901
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,490,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant on September 2014, for the construction cost of KRW 75,900,00 (excluding value-added tax) from the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 as advance payment on September 19, 2014, and KRW 20,000,000 as part payment on October 2, 2014, and the Defendant’s operation of the hospital from June 2015.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the claim, since the construction of this case is deemed to have been completed before June 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 33,490,000 (including value-added tax) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 27, 2016 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, as a result of the completion of the construction.

Unlike the initial design drawings, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request, since the Plaintiff’s business loss was incurred by KRW 100,000,000 until May 26, 2015, which was completed reconstruction, on the wind constructed without securing a toilet and a guide room.

It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff caused a defect by executing construction differently from the initial drawings only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's assertion that is premised on the plaintiff's construction defects is without merit.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.

arrow