logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.10 2017가단210753
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 71,591,716 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from March 16, 2016 to April 14, 2017.

Reasons

Basic Facts

- The Defendant, who is engaged in interior fishing, contracted interior works to the Plaintiff, such as the 2nd underground, 2nd, 7nd and 14th floor of the building in Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, and the 14th floor of the building, and the tent painting work.

- The Plaintiff, who received a contract from the Defendant, agreed to settle the construction cost of the said interior works through mutual settlement. The Plaintiff completed the said interior works, and the Defendant settled the Plaintiff’s construction cost at KRW 125,883,379 (excluding value-added tax) via the site director E of the said interior works, who is an employee.

- The Defendant paid 60,800,000 won to the Plaintiff as construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the whole purport of the arguments, based on the above basic facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 71,591,716 won as the construction price (=65,083,716 won as the construction price (=65,883,379 won - 60,800 won as value-added tax - 6,508,337 won as the settlement date) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 16, 2016 until April 14, 2017, where the defendant was served with the original copy of the payment order of this case from March 16, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Although the defendant asserts that it is necessary to settle the construction cost, as seen earlier, since the amount of the construction cost claimed by the plaintiff was settled by the defendant via E, who is an employee in charge of the foregoing interior works, additional settlement cannot be deemed necessary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the defendant.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.

arrow