beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 62,527,500 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 4, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From May 25, 2017 to July 9, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the navigational information technology (hereinafter in this case’s equipment) to the Defendant (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd.) on the following terms: The term of contract at the site of civil works among new construction works in the Sinnam-si from May 25, 2017 to July 15, 2017: CIP [25,000 won/M], H-book [35,00 won/M]: The term of payment was within 15 days from the end of each month when the lease exceeds one month.
B. The Plaintiff received 59,760,000 won from the Defendant for the instant equipment rental fee of KRW 122,287,50 [The Plaintiff received 54,60,000 (1,560 x 35,000 won) for the operating quantity of 2,707.5m for the instant equipment rental fee of KRW 67,687,50 (2707.5 x 25,000) for the instant equipment rental fee of KRW 1,560 for the instant equipment rental fee of KRW 1,560 (1,560 x 35,00), and did not receive the remainder of KRW 62,527,50.50.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the rental fee of KRW 62,527,500, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 4, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant’s assertion and its determination to the effect that an excessive amount of work was calculated first, but the above work quantity is calculated in accordance with the on-site work schedule prepared by the Plaintiff during the construction period, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence. The “on-site work confirmation businessman” in the above on-site work schedule appears to have been calculated reasonably in light of the Defendant’s employee, who is the manager at the above construction site, confirmed and signed the work contents, and there is evidence to view that the work quantity was calculated excessively.