(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.06.15 2017가단27636

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.06.15 2017가단27636

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 16, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant contracted the plaintiff around 2016 to KRW 160,00,000 for the entertainment drinking house of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and the second underground floor entertainment drinking house. The plaintiff completed the above construction around February 2017, and the defendant paid the plaintiff a total of KRW 125,00,000 to the construction cost. According to the above facts, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay the plaintiff a delay compensation amount of KRW 35,00,000 (=160,000,000-125,000) and the amount of the above construction cost payable to the plaintiff at the rate of 15% per annum from October 16, 2017 to the day of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that ① construction cost of KRW 27,973,00 shall be deducted from the plaintiff's claim amount, ② as the completion of the construction of the construction of this case was delayed for three months, and that the plaintiff suffered damages due to defects in the construction part.

(1) There is no evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff had failed to construct toilets.

(O) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 3-1 and No. 3-2, the Plaintiff, in consultation with the Defendant, decided to construct the toilet screen and cryle as an existing product, and completed the toilet interior work). (2) There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a defect in the part of the Plaintiff’s construction work, even if the Plaintiff was paid the construction cost, or that there was a defect in the part of the Plaintiff’s construction work.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.07 2015가단26767

-서울동부지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가단13469

-수원지방법원여주지원 2016.06.02 2015가단7550

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.09.17 2015가단7934

-서울동부지방법원 2020.11.27 2020나22768