2016 Gohap 53817 Damage, Claim

A

1. B

2. C:

February 9, 2017

February 16, 2017

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 150,000,000 won and the amount calculated by the ratio of 15% per annum from July 2, 2016 to the date of full payment, and Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff 15% per annum from August 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The primary purport of the claim is as stated in the text.

Preliminary claim: Defendant C shall pay 205,660,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;

2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judges Kang Jong-chul

Judges Lee Gyeong-hoon

Grounds for Claim

1. Status of the parties

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. is (tentative name) an agent for the construction of apartment buildings of the DD Housing Association, and Defendant C is the representative director of the above Defendant C Co., Ltd., and E is the chairman of the DD Housing Association Promotion Committee.

B. Defendant B and E established Defendant C, a representative director of Defendant B, to build apartment units in the Filwon of the Gyeong-Gun, instead of Gyeongnam-gun, according to the method of the regional housing association, around July 21, 2015, and the actual performance of which was performed by Defendant B as the representative director, and at a similar time, Defendant B and E respectively established the Committee for Promotion of the D Housing Association (tentative name) with E as the chairperson of the Promotion Committee (tentative name).

2. Conclusion of a contract for interior works and payment of the price therefor;

A. Defendant B knew that he had been engaged in the same club activities with the Plaintiff for more than one year, and asked the instant housing association publicity center to execute the test work if he knows that the Plaintiff should do the test work.

B. The plaintiff refused the first time because it was not proper for the plaintiff to conduct a large scale of interior works such as the Housing Publicity Center. However, the defendant B's request for multiple times as well as the defendant B's request for multiple times.

For pro-friendly reasons, around December 7, 2015, the total construction cost between Defendant C Co., Ltd., the representative director of which is Defendant C, shall be KRW 230,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period shall be from December 7, 2015 to January 14, 2016, entered into a contract for the DD Housing Association Promotion Center’s internal construction works and design construction works on the unit of household (hereinafter referred to as “the interior construction”) (see subparagraph 1).

C. The Plaintiff commenced construction on or around December 8, 2015 according to the above interior construction contract, and thereafter deposited down payment of KRW 20,000,000 and intermediate payment of KRW 60,000 from the account in the name of Defendant C. However, the Defendants, who completed the interior construction, opened a public relations center and did not pay the remainder of KRW 150,00,000 to the Plaintiff while engaging in the activities of soliciting members. Accordingly, even though the Plaintiff urged the payment to Defendant B and C several times, the Plaintiff neglected this demand, and the Plaintiff was found to have neglected economic difficulties due to the payment of the subcontract price to its sewage companies.

3. Compensation for damages caused by a tort;

A. As if Defendant B and E carry out the instant implementation project, Defendant B and E subscribed to recruit members to acquire economic benefits, and paid a daily million won as capital on July 21, 2015 and promptly established Defendant C. Defendant C has no capacity to implement the said large-scale construction project with a company that does not have any property (see, e.g., evidence A, with no corporate credit card that is issued in the name of the company).

B. The Defendants did not have any experience in the implementation of the apartment project of a regional housing association, without the intention or ability of carrying out the implementation project, and advertised three apartment units by the regional housing association method in the Fil-gun Fil-gun, 2015, and recruited its members, and received a written consent to land use from the relevant land owners. The Defendants knew that the Fil-Gun Fil-gun may construct only multi-family housing with the Class-II general residential area (see Evidence A No. 4) or less than 18 square meters, and knew that they would be able to construct multi-family housing with the above 27th general residential area (see Evidence 2 of the above Act) by inviting more members and recruited its members to recruit its members to acquire more economic benefits. To this end, Defendant B, upon request of the Plaintiff, entered into the instant interior housing contract.

C. The Defendants actually caused property damage equivalent to KRW 150,000,000, which was not paid by having the Plaintiff perform interior construction work, without any intent to pay the construction cost as stated in the contract even if the Plaintiff completed the interior construction work, and is presumed to have the ability to pay the construction cost in full to the Plaintiff without any intent to pay the construction cost (the Plaintiff was able to fully purchase at the same time as Defendant B’s largest horizontal water house, and only she became aware of its own property). This constitutes a fraud crime (the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants in the form of fraud).

D. The Plaintiff borrowed money from one’s subcontractor to one’s subcontractor without receiving the construction cost from the Defendants, the ordering person, and the Plaintiff cannot continue to bear the interest burden, and any preservative measure is also taken to find out the Defendants’ property.

In mind, although the credit information company applied for inquiry about the defendants to the credit information company, the defendant C was a company name only, and the defendant B was also aware that there was no property in its own name. Moreover, the construction site of the apartment complex, the promotional center site, and the buildings executed by the defendants were not owned by the defendants. Furthermore, the defendants recently try to transfer the apartment complex of this case to another person in return for the money of KRW 00 million.

E. As above, the plaintiff suffered property damage equivalent to KRW 150,000,000 due to the defendants' illegal acts, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above money to the plaintiff.

4. The preliminary claim (the cost of construction and the claim for liquidated damages).

As stated earlier, although the Plaintiff concluded the instant interior construction contract with Defendant C and completed the construction, it did not receive any balance of KRW 150,000,000. Thus, Defendant C Co., Ltd., a contractor of the said contract, is liable to pay the remainder of KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff KRW 55,660,000 (=230,000,000 KRW X2/1,000).

5. Conclusion

As above, the plaintiff has filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendants for the same judgment as the purport of the claim.

1) In the instant written contract for the interior design (construction cost) (2), “A” shall not delay payment without justifiable grounds in relation to the payment of the construction cost under the preceding paragraph, and in the event of delay, “A” shall pay interest on the total construction cost 2/1,000 per day from the following day to the date of full payment. As such, the Plaintiff was not paid any balance 1,2, and 3, and the remainder 1 payment date was on February 19, 2016, and thus, there was a penalty for delay corresponding to 121 days as of June 19, 2016.