beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,220,170 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 1, 2015 to December 16, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 26, 2012, the Defendant awarded a contract for “B church construction work” (hereinafter “instant construction work”) with the term “B church construction work” (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from May 1, 2013 to July 15, 2013, respectively, from May 1, 2013 to July 2015, 2013.
B. Based on the copy of the payment order finalized by the Incheon District Court Branch Branch 2015j104, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order as to KRW 23,220,170 of the instant construction cost claim against the Defendant of the Dok comprehensive Construction, which was issued by the same court. On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order on May 11, 2015, and the said order was served on the Defendant on May 12, 2015.
C. The comprehensive repair construction completed the instant construction. D.
On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the content-certified mail demanding the payment of the collection amount under the above order by June 30, 2015, and the above notification was delivered to the Defendant around June 18, 2015.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 3, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the facts as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 23,220,170 and the delay damages.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant has a damage claim in lieu of defect repair against the construction by tugboat comprehensive construction. Since the above damage claim should be offset or deducted from the construction cost of this case, it is alleged that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for collection of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to view that there exists any defect as alleged by the Defendant in the instant construction work only with the entries and images of Dokdae, B-2 through 6,9, 10, 11 (including the number of serial numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion has no
C. The defendant's theory of lawsuit is 23,220,170 won and this shall apply to the plaintiff.