beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,150,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 5, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. As to the instant lawsuit claiming the payment of construction cost on the premise that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract and completed the construction work by the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant is unlawful and dismissed as it is against the Defendant, since the Plaintiff was not the Defendant but C.
However, in the performance suit, a person who is alleged by the plaintiff as the performance obligor has the defendant's eligibility, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
2. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as to the merits of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the fact that the plaintiff prepared and delivered to the plaintiff a letter of payment to the effect that the plaintiff would pay KRW 30,150,000 out of the construction price of each of the above construction works to the plaintiff as KRW 30,00,000 among the construction price of each of the above construction works to the plaintiff, around November 8, 2014, the teatary Corporation Corporation established in Incheon D, around January 14, 2015, and the teatary Corporation was awarded a contract and completed on January 23, 2015, and the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,000 among the construction price of each of the above construction works.
According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 30,150,000 for each of the above construction works and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from December 5, 2015 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff, the document corresponding to the complaint of this case is delivered to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the payment of the construction cost against the defendant is unfair, since the person who ordered the above construction work to the plaintiff is not C, not the defendant.
However, the entry of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 in each of the above subparagraphs alone.