beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 67,200,000 and for this, KRW 20% per annum from July 16, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The facts of recognition: (a) on March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract for the Changho Construction Work in Gwangju-si, where the Defendant was contracted and was performing construction work around that time; and (b) on April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded that the Plaintiff shall reconstruct part of the Changho Construction Work, and that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 36 million as the construction price (hereinafter “instant agreement”); (c) around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff only KRW 36 million as the construction price; and (d) on the other hand, the Defendant did not dispute between the parties or agreed that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1.2 million as the construction price in Sung-nam Housing; and (e) the Defendant did not pay KRW 1.2 million as the construction price in contact with the Plaintiff; and (e) on the other hand, it can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire arguments written in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 3.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 16, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment of the complaint of this case.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. In the Defendant’s initial construction work, the Plaintiff’s construction work should be executed with a thickness of 200 milllass and thickness of 31 milllass in accordance with the design drawing. However, in violation of this, the Plaintiff’s arbitrary construction of windows 165 milllass and glass was built with a thickness of 27 milllass.
Afterwards, the owner of the building discovered such fact through the supervision and refused to pay the construction cost that the defendant received to the defendant for that reason, and without choice, the defendant agreed on April 20, 2012 to pay the plaintiff KRW 30 million in return for reconstruction of the original construction work again in accordance with the design drawing.