logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2019.04.30 2019가단261
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 22, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2018, the Plaintiff was engaged in tegrative fishery with the trade name “C”, and the Defendant received from the Defendant the tegrative construction for the tegrative construction for the tegrative shop located in Masan-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant construction”) for construction cost of KRW 93.7 million.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

Around August 1, 2018, the Plaintiff started construction work and continued construction work. Around August 18, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to suspend construction work, and the Plaintiff suspended construction work around that time.

C. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant on August 22, 2018, that “The payment of the existing construction cost shall be adjusted to KRW 39,396,600,000,” which was demanded by the Defendant from the time of the discontinuance of the said construction work to “the payment of the existing construction cost shall be adjusted to KRW 35 million.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant settlement agreement”). [The grounds for recognition: the absence of dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), and the whole purport of oral argument]

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of 35 million won under the instant settlement agreement and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 22, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow