beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 8,739,957 won and 6% per annum from January 7, 2017 to January 12, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a golf practice range with the trade name of “D”, and the Defendant C is a person running a interior fishery with the trade name of “E”, and the Defendant B is the husband of Defendant C.
B. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendants for the construction of Category D and Meet (hereinafter “instant construction”) at the contract price of KRW 40,300,00 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from February 24, 2016 to March 15, 2016.
(hereinafter “the instant construction contract”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for liquidated damages (A) between the Plaintiff and the Defendants at the time of concluding the instant construction contract, and the Defendants agreed to complete the instant construction project until March 15, 2016, and pay liquidated damages according to the rate of 2/1,000 of the supplied amount in the event of failure to complete the construction by that time. The Defendants delivered the certificate documents related to flame retardation to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2016. As such, the Defendants jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1,209,00 for liquidated damages (=40,30,000 x 2/1,000 x 15 x 15 days (from March 16, 2016 to March 30, 2016) and delay damages thereon.
B) The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants was delayed more than five days before the scheduled construction work for the Plaintiff’s golf range building construction work. Accordingly, the Defendants commenced the instant construction work on March 2, 2016, which was after February 24, 2016, which was the scheduled construction commencement date. As such, even though the instant construction work was delayed due to the Plaintiff’s fault, the Defendants completed the construction work on the scheduled completion date, and even if the construction was delayed, the Defendants did not have any cause attributable to the delay in the construction work. (ii) The Defendants are considered to have completed the construction work if the construction was interrupted and the scheduled last process was not completed.