beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,600,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 6% from May 1, 2013 to July 9, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of steel bars, concrete construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of packaging construction business, etc.
B. On April 13, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement containing the following contents, upon receiving a subcontract from the Defendant for the Japanese unit civil engineering works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) located in the Ycheon-dong Ycheon-si, Ycheon-si, as the construction cost was KRW 9.4.6 million (including value-added tax).
(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). 6. Payment of the price
(a) One million won within one day after concluding an advance payment contract;
B. On April 19, 2013, KRW 40 million for progress payment (materials) and KRW 4.6 million for progress payment ( equipment, personnel expenses) on April 30, 2013 and KRW 44.6 million for failure to pay the unpaid amount are liable to Hanmi Construction (Korean Federation).
(1) The Complemented amount of progress payment shall be treated directly by Hanmi (Korean Federation) against the plaintiff.
C. Since the completion of the instant construction work, the Plaintiff received KRW 3 million in total from the Defendant on April 12, 2013 and KRW 20 million on April 25, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3-1, 2, 4-1 and 4-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from May 1, 2013 to July 9, 2013, the delivery date of the complaint, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
B. The Defendant alleged that the contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff that it was not obligated to pay construction cost. However, it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion only by the descriptions of the evidence No. 1 and No. 1.