beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 36,300,000 won and 5% per annum from June 16, 2015 to April 8, 2016.
Reasons
1.The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.
On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a design contract (hereinafter “instant design contract”) which is 61,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the construction of a new building of Class I neighborhood living facilities (owner: Defendant B; hereinafter “instant building”) of Defendant C and Busan Dong-gu, and Class II neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. The Plaintiff prepared and submitted design drawings in accordance with the instant design agreement and received KRW 28,000,000 (including value-added tax) out of the said price.
C. After that, on April 27, 2015, the Defendants agreed to jointly pay KRW 33,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) to the Plaintiff within 30 days from the date of approval for use of the instant building (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
Meanwhile, the instant building was approved on May 15, 2015.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff 36,300,000 won (i.e., the amount equivalent to value added tax of 33,00,000 won unpaid) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from June 16, 2015 to April 8, 2016, which is the delivery date of the duplicate of the application for correction of the claim and the cause of the claim of this case, from the date following the date of the above payment, to the date of delivery of the duplicate of the application for correction of the claim of this case.
B. First of all, the defendants asserted that the defendants agreed in this case by coercion that they would not have the right to request the use of the building of this case if they did not pay the unpaid amount, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.