logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.03.09 2015가단26628
공사대금 등
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and Defendant B with full payment from October 22, 2015.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-1 through 5 and evidence 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is acknowledged that the plaintiff was a person operating the landscaping company with the trade name "D", and the defendant was requested to supply or transplant trees from the defendant Eul to the "F pension" located in Hongcheon-gun E in Gangwon-do on November 28, 2014. The plaintiff and the defendants requested additional supply and planting around December 6, 2014. The plaintiff and the defendants determined the above supply and planting work period from December 2, 2014 to December 24, 2014, the total work price is set at KRW 100,000,000, the work price is to be paid within one month after completion of the work, or within March 20, 2015, and the plaintiff concluded to pay the above work within two months after completion of the work.

According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 10,00,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 22, 2015 to the date of the delivery of the payment order in this case sought by the plaintiff as the date of completion of the above work, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 14, 2015 to September 30, 205, which is obvious from August 30, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the date of delivery of the payment order in this case sought by the plaintiff after the completion of the above work.

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

A. As to this, Defendant C asserts to the effect that, even though the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw the instant lawsuit between Defendant C’s father, Defendant C violated this agreement, Defendant C did not have the benefit of protecting the rights.

According to the evidence No. 1, G, the father of Defendant C, around August 17, 2015.

arrow