beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, and Defendant C, jointly and severally with Defendant C, KRW 57,800,00, and KRW 41.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 11, 2017, the Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee concluded a service contract for interior design (hereinafter “instant design contract”) with the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) on a contract with the design of the D Regional Housing Association (hereinafter “instant model house”) of KRW 59 square meters and 64 square meters on a service fee of KRW 20,00,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the Defendant C entered into a service contract for interior design (hereinafter “instant design contract”).
In addition, on May 1, 2017, Defendant C entered into a display service contract providing the Plaintiff with a service charge of KRW 38,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant display service contract”), and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff.
B. On April 17, 2017, Defendant C paid KRW 6,000,000 to the Plaintiff as part of the service cost.
In addition, the Plaintiff performed all of the services under each of the above contracts.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total service cost of KRW 63,800,000 [the total service cost of KRW 20,000,000 for design contract service cost of KRW 38,000,000 for value-added tax of KRW 38,000 for display service cost of KRW 38,80,000 for value-added tax] among the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 6,00,000 for part of the design contract cost of this case [6,00,000 for payment of KRW 6,000 for display service cost of this case ( April 17, 2017)]. Thus, the above money is deemed to have been paid part of the design contract cost of KRW 57,80,000 for service contract cost of KRW 6,000 for the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 6,600,000 for display service cost of this case.
In addition, Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed only the obligation of the instant display service contract, and thus, Defendant B and the Defendant C are jointly and severally engaged in the instant display.