logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.10.26 2017가단16346
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,677,100 as well as 6% per annum from December 1, 2016 to July 4, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract with the Defendant and Jeju-si, setting a contract term of KRW 150,677,100 with respect to tin construction among the construction works for the construction of a long-term gymp detached house located in the Sin-Eup flowing car, from May 26, 2016 to July 15, 2016.

B. After that, on July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a modified contract under which the period of construction of the said contract was extended to September 15, 2016; the contract that was extended to KRW 163,677,100 on September 15, 2016; the contract that was extended to KRW 163,67,100 on October 10, 2016; and the contract that was extended to the period of construction until November 30, 2016; and the contract that was extended to the period of construction by November 30, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”, including the modified part).

On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff completed construction work under the instant construction contract. The Defendant paid KRW 110 million to the Plaintiff out of the construction cost of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of construction price of KRW 40,677,100 (i.e., KRW 150,677,100 - KRW 110,000) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from December 1, 2016 to July 4, 2017, on which the copy of the instant complaint was served by the date following the completion date of the instant construction, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant notified the plaintiff that he will pay the balance of the construction price of this case when he received the construction price from the original office, and that he could not accept the plaintiff's claim until he receives the construction price from the original office.

Therefore, health class, .

arrow