logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2015.11.25 2015가단2001
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,266,244 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 13, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from the Defendant for metal and windows construction works among new construction works for cooking restaurants at the headquarters B (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) at KRW 63,800,000 (including value-added tax).

B. The Plaintiff completed the remaining construction work excluding construction work equivalent to KRW 8,467,976. The additional construction work equivalent to KRW 4,334,220 was paid to the Plaintiff. The Defendant paid the construction cost of KRW 34,400,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 25,266,244 (=63,80,000 – KRW 34,40,00 – KRW 8,467,976 KRW 4,334,220), as sought by the Plaintiff, 15 per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 13, 2015 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the delay in construction by the plaintiff paid compensation for delay of KRW 23,036,793 to the defendant, and that there was a defect in the construction executed by the plaintiff. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the delay in construction of a newly built restaurant at the B center was caused by the delay in metal and windows due to the plaintiff's causes attributable to the delay in construction, or that there was a defect in the plaintiff's construction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow