beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 36,797,00 with full payment from February 23, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around August 2014, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) entered into a new construction contract for B detached Housing (hereinafter “instant building”) at Jeju (hereinafter “instant building”). The main contents are as follows:
1) On August 29, 2014, the date scheduled for completion of the construction of B detached Housing 2): The date scheduled for completion of the construction works: on January 2015, 2015: 215,000 won: 65,000 won intermediate payment (30%): 65,000 won (30%) intermediate payment (30%): 65,000 won (10%) 65,000 won (10%) 20,000 won (10%) 20,000 won: 0,000 won (10%) 20,000,000 won: 0,000 won (6): The penalty for delay was calculated by multiplying the contract amount by the number of days on the contract basis for delay when the Defendant fails to complete the construction works within the due date: 0,000,000 won (Article 27: 45,275,275).
2. Demand for principal lawsuit:
A. The instant building caused defects and erroneous construction as shown in the attached Form, and the construction cost for that part is KRW 9,492,000.
(Evaluation Results by Appraiser C)
Since the Defendant delayed construction works for 127 days from the date following the date of approval for use on January 20, 2015, which was the date of completion of the instant contract, until May 27, 2015, the date of completion of the instant contract, and thus, the penalty for delay is KRW 27,305,000 (the total construction contract amount of KRW 215,00,000 x the rate of penalty for delay x 0.01 x 127 days).
(No. 4) On the other hand, the contract prepared by the plaintiff and the defendant shall state the rate of liquidated damages as 0.01%.
However, in general, the interpretation of a contract should not be bound by the formal phrase only, and the genuine intent of both parties should be examined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da2629, Oct. 26, 1993). If there is any difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties, and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the text is written.