Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,577,120 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 26, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation whose establishment registration was completed on August 30, 1989 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling ready-mixeds.
B. The Defendant is a corporation whose registration of incorporation was completed on August 27, 2012 for the purpose of designing and constructing logistics terminals.
C. From August 9, 2014 to November 8, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with ready-mixed (Standard 25-21-120) equivalent to the sum of KRW 145,57,120 (Standard 25-21-120), which is necessary for the Defendant to perform the construction of the office-based terminal extension company (hereinafter “K-based terminal”).
On August 1, 2014, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000,000, in total, from that time to December 30, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), the whole purport of pleading
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid payment of 20,577,120 won (=145,577,120 won - 120,000 won) and damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The defendant's assertion argues that, due to defects in ready-mixed supplied by the plaintiff, there was a phenomenon such as floor rupture, etc. at the construction site, and the case rupture calls for repair of defects without paying a part of the construction cost to the defendant. The defendant asserts that the unpaid ready-mixed cannot be paid until an agreement is reached to solve this problem.
However, there is no evidence to prove the fact that there is a defect in the ready-mixed supplied by the plaintiff, or that there is a phenomenon such as floor cracks at the construction site, and even though this court urged the defendant to prove the defect, the defendant does not prove any particular evidence.