beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of the instant claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 7 (including each number of branch numbers), the plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 18,00,000 for the construction cost from Mapo-gu Seoul District Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) around December 31, 2015, and the plaintiff thereafter received the payment of KRW 9,000,000 as well as the remainder of KRW 7,200,000 as the construction cost of the instant case from the defendant, who was the vice president of the Co., Ltd. and the defendant, who was the defendant, for the remainder of KRW 9,00,000,000,000 from March 8, 2016, and the payment of KRW 15,16, etc. is recognized as having been received from the plaintiff around October 31, 2016 (No. 9,000).
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 16, 2017 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff, following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order in this case, as the above KRW 9,00,000 after the above payment period, to the plaintiff.
B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the above written confirmation of the payment of the construction cost was confirmed not to have the Defendant’s individual paid the balance of the construction cost, but to have it confirmed that C would pay. However, considering the content of the written confirmation of the payment of the construction cost as well as the fact that E, other employees of C, around December 22, 2016, which is similar time, prepared a written confirmation of the payment of construction cost (Evidence A) for the construction cost of KRW 9,00,000,000, the above written confirmation of the payment of the construction cost as well as C, the Defendant’s individual would also pay KRW 9,00,000,00
In addition, the Defendant’s construction cost of this case in addition to KRW 1,800,000 on January 9, 2016, and KRW 7,200,00 on March 8, 2016, as well as KRW 2,000 on May 13, 2016, and KRW 6,00 on July 6, 2016.