beta
Text
1. The Defendant paid KRW 27,747,60 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from June 1, 2016 to December 14, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 28, 2016, the Defendant awarded a sub-subcontract to the Plaintiff with the following content: (a) “D” (hereinafter “the instant contract”) ordered by C to the forest industry (hereinafter “forest industry”).
3) Contract amount of KRW 602,800,000 (including value-added tax): 30,140,000 in advance; and 54,800,000 in advance; and 54,800,000 in advance; and 512,380,000 in remainder; and 60,280,000 in remainder of 60,000 in June 39, 2016: 10% of the down payment of the defective performance securities;
2. Price settlement: ① 5% advance payment (contract implementation securities, payments within 30 days) (2) 85% (B3B 90 day after the end of the 25th of each month following the end of the 25th of the month according to the fair ratio).
4. Amount excluded from the settlement of expenses for the lease of a building site (6,00,000 x 5 months = 30,000,000) VAT.
B. While the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the construction work under the instant contract to Nonparty E (F Company) and had E, from March 2016, leased the relevant forest industry to UBS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “site”), the work was suspended due to the nonperformance of the oil industry in May of the same year, and the owner C paid the construction price directly to E for the five-month work.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 174,252,00 as the construction cost by May 23, 2016, an advance payment of KRW 3,0140,000 and KRW 174,252,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8 through 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim
A. As to the construction cost, the Plaintiff asserts that the period of payment up to April 2016 was equivalent to 51% or 42%, and sought payment of the unpaid amount of KRW 48,784,00, among the construction cost up to that time, and the Defendant asserts that the period of payment is only 26.28%.
First of all, with respect to the advance rate until April 2016, it is the health unit, and only the evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 9 unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff.