logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.06.28 2017가단73362
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 116,160,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 30, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, a stock company operating elevator manufacturing, installation, repair business, etc., to replace parts (rop and subpact) of elevator parts installed in B apartments, and set the price at KRW 116,160,000.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). (b)

On December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project and received a written confirmation of completion of the work from the Defendant’s side.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 116,160,000 under the instant construction contract and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 30, 2017 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, as claimed by the Plaintiff, from March 30, 2017, the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s defense, etc. 1) asserts that the instant construction contract is null and void because the Defendant unilaterally reduced the construction work or did not specify the construction completion period. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff unilaterally performed the construction work, and as long as the construction cost, etc. was determined at the time of the instant construction contract, the said construction contract cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the construction completion period was not specified. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) Since the Defendant had tried on June 30, 2016, which is the date agreed upon by the Plaintiff, with the Defendant’s compensation claim of KRW 5,808,00 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s unpaid construction payment claim against the Defendant against the Defendant.

However, it includes No. 8 (Work Schedule).

arrow