beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,800,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from June 10, 2015 to December 16, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 2, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a S2 project aerial photography service contract with the Defendant, and around 2009, the aviation survey and obstacles survey service contract from among the designation of a general industrial complex in the Achlorate and the shop design service, and around 2010, the airline aerial photography service contract (hereinafter “each service contract in this case”) from among the establishment services of the industrial complex development project plan for the Seosan Urban Industrial Complex in the Seosan Urban Industrial Complex, respectively, and performed all of the above services.
B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 69,300,000 out of the service costs under each of the instant service contracts.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 69,300,000 won and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The defendant's defense is a defense that the 49,500,000 won for service under the S2 Project Air Survey Service Agreement of May 2, 2003 of each service contract of this case had already expired after the lapse of 10 years, and the fact that the application for the payment order of this case was received after the lapse of 10 years from 2003 is obvious in the records, and the part of the plaintiff exceeding 19,80,000 won out of the claim amount of this case has expired. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified.
3. In conclusion, the defendant is based on the annual rate of 6% under the Commercial Act from June 10, 2015 to December 16, 2015 and the annual rate of 15% under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is determined to be reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case from June 10, 2015 on the record that is the next day of the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, as the plaintiff seeks from the 19,800,000 won to the day of full payment.