beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,132,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from January 1, 2013 to April 24, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant contracted from B to build an urban residential house with the fifth floor above the ground in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu. Around August 2012, the Defendant decided and subcontracted the construction work part of the building to the Plaintiff, a company operating tin construction business, as construction cost of KRW 65,045,860 (supply price of KRW 59,132,60, value-added tax of KRW 5,913,260).
B. As a result, the Plaintiff performed the stone construction work from September 15, 2012 to November 14, 2012. The Plaintiff received payment of KRW 30,000,000,000 from the Defendant as the construction price on September 26, 2012, and KRW 10,000,000 on September 27, 2012, and KRW 10,000,000 on November 1, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 16 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay 3,00,000, value-added tax of 30,000,000,000, and the remaining supply value of 29,132,600,000 (=59,132,600,300-30,000) as requested by the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from January 1, 2013 to April 24, 2015, which is the date this decision is rendered, on the ground that there is a substantial dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform this case, as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform this case, and as to the next day, from the date of full payment, 6% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the defendant fully paid the price of the instant stone construction on the premise that the price of the instant stone construction exceeds KRW 30,000,000,000, but the defendant's assertion is not accepted on the ground that there is no other evidence that the defendant paid the price of the instant stone construction in excess of KRW 65,045,860 (value 59,132,60, value 5,913,260, value 5,000, value 5,913,260).
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and there is no reason to do so.