beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 32,575,00 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from February 8, 2018 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in air-conditioning installation business, was entrusted by the Defendant and performed air-conditioning pipeline installation business at the location of four sites. Each pipeline installation cost is KRW 24,270,000 for C Corporation, KRW 13,80,000 for D Corporation, KRW 7,285,00 for E District Corporation, and KRW 4,90,00 for F Corporation.
B. The Plaintiff also performed the work of installing air conditioners at the C Corporation site. The Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a statement of transaction (Evidence A 2-1) with the supply value of piping Corporation and installation works at KRW 59,730,000 to C Corporation site, and at the Defendant’s request, stated that the supply value shall be KRW 59,50,000 (including additional tax) at the lower end of the said statement of transaction.
C. The Defendant paid KRW 53,00,000 to the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2-1 to 4, Evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 32,575,00,00 calculated by subtracting KRW 53,00,00,00,00 paid from KRW 85,575,00 (C 59,50,000 KRW D 13,80,000 (C 7,285,990,000) for air-conditioning pipeline construction and installation costs for the above four construction sites.
B. The defendant (1) asserts that the defendant is not obligated to pay the price for the installation work because the air conditioner installation was made according to the contract between G and the plaintiff, the owner of the building, and the defendant was requested only for the pipe construction work.
(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a trading statement of KRW 59,500,00 (Evidence A No. 2-1) to the Defendant, including the value of supply, including the installation of air conditioners at C construction sites.
(3) The defendant asserted that the defendant only prepared the above transactional specifications at the request of the plaintiff that received the payment from G, the owner of the building, instead of receiving the payment from G, and did not make the payment of the construction cost to the plaintiff.