beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 29,517,800 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 18, 2014 to October 7, 2014; and (b).
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction work at 13 construction sites from October 30, 201 to March 6, 201, and completed the construction work after being awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction work at the 13 construction sites, such as D Automobile Research Institutes, etc. located in the Jeonju-gun of North Korea from October 30, 201 to March 6, 2013, and the total construction cost for the said 13 construction sites is 63,73
On the other hand, the plaintiff is a person who received KRW 34,220,000 among the above construction cost from the defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 29,517,80 won (=63,737,800 won - 34,220,000 won) and 20% per annum under the Civil Act from April 18, 2014 to October 7, 2014, which is the day following the day of service of the instant payment order sought by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff for the existence or scope of the instant payment order.
2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant paid 14,280,000 won out of the construction cost as above to the plaintiff, and that 1,170,000 won of the labor cost at the site of "Gwangwon Housing Housing" was paid in lieu of Samma Construction by a limited liability company. However, each of the documents of subparagraphs B and 3 are insufficient to recognize the above repayment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, the plaintiff and the defendant asserted to the effect that the plaintiff and the defendant can not respond to the plaintiff's claim because they have the claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 73,041,100 which are to be received from the Samma Construction in the E-building Construction. However, the circumstance alleged by the defendant does not constitute a ground for refusing the plaintiff's claim
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed.