logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2020.09.10 2020가단202755
공사대금
Text

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,00 and the interest rate thereon from November 22, 2019 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2018, Defendant B contracted to the Plaintiff for the instant construction work for the hotel hotel (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the contract amount of KRW 240,000,000.

B. Around June 2, 2019, the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to pay KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff as agreed upon by Defendant B upon the completion of the instant construction project, and written agreement on the same day.

C. Defendant B paid KRW 20,000,000 among the above agreed amount of KRW 60,000,000 and did not pay the remainder.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Defendant B

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, according to an agreement on June 2, 2019, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 40 million among the agreed amounts and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment.

B. Defendant B’s assertion that at the time, Defendant B was formally prepared to prevent F, a party to the Plaintiff, from interfering with the business of Defendant B, and there was no agreement to pay the actual cost of construction. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, this part of the defendant B's assertion is rejected.

3. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment of Defendant C and D, the above Defendants are jointly and severally liable at the time of the agreement on June 2, 2019.

However, the above defendants' participation in the preparation of the agreement at the time, but they are argued to the purport that they did not refer to personal guarantee because they were stated in the sense that they would have been able to repay.

arrow