1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,400,000 as well as 6% per annum from October 1, 2013 to September 23, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the 92,400,000 won of the contract amount, as of September 12, 2013 on the date of commencement, and on September 30, 2013 on the date of completion, the date of completion, and entered into a contract for the Outline Team and Changho Construction among D factory construction works in the esisisisisisisisico.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)
On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the foregoing construction. The Defendant paid each of the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 as down payment on September 17, 2013, KRW 25,000,000 on October 16, 2013, KRW 5,000,000 on January 28, 2014, and KRW 2,00,000 on May 1, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant seems to have written errors in calculation, as alleged by the plaintiff, in the remainder of construction cost of KRW 20,400,000 ( KRW 92,400,000 - KRW 72,00,000) based on the contract of this case.
On October 1, 2013, the day following the due date of the remainder payment, there is an obligation to pay 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 23, 2015, which is the date of this decision, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
Although the Plaintiff is also seeking the payment of KRW 2,788,227, the Plaintiff’s claim for additional construction cost is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to pay the additional construction cost by only the descriptions in the Evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for additional
Although the Defendant alleged that KRW 4,500,000 paid to the Plaintiff on September 14, 2013 was part of the construction cost under the instant contract, the said money was remitted before the down payment was made, and it is difficult to view it as repayment under the instant contract. Rather, according to the statement in the evidence No. 5, it appears that the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the construction cost under another contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
In addition, the defendant did not deposit the warranty bond.