beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 150,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from October 21, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 2012, the Korea District Heating Corporation (Seoul District Heating Corporation) concluded a contract on the main pipeline improvement works in Seocho-gu, Seoul District Office (hereinafter “instant construction works”) with B and the Plaintiff in Gangnam-gu, 2012, as follows.
Contract name: The date of commencement of the project for the improvement of the main pipeline network in the Seocho-gu branch office in 2012: the Korea District Heating Corporation's branch office in Gangnam-gu, and the date of commencement of the project for B and the Plaintiff's construction amount (the change of KRW 4,324,540,000 after this change): June 18, 2012: June 17, 2014;
On June 17, 2012, the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) drafted a loan certificate stating that the instant construction work shall be executed by the head of the field office of the company B and the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff on June 17, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts established prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the agreed amount of KRW 150,000,000 as stated in the loan certificate of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 21, 2014 to the day of full payment, as the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff.
3. Judgment on the defense
A. The Defendant, as a site manager in charge of the instant construction, prepared the instant loan certificate in the sense that the Plaintiff would incur loss to the Plaintiff due to the instant construction work. The Plaintiff obtained profit equivalent to KRW 171,412,93 with the instant construction work, and thus, asserted that the instant loan certificate was null and void. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the terms and conditions alleged by the Defendant.