logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.17 2016가단521347
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 136,532,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 6% per annum from December 25, 2015 to July 8, 2016.

Reasons

The Defendant received a payment of KRW 324,863,00 for the instant construction work with respect to the construction work for the installation of the shellfish facilities in the Magyeong-si fishery products sales market located in Sejong-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction work”). Around July 2015, the Defendant subcontracted the said construction work to the Plaintiff as construction cost of KRW 257,950,000; and the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the instant construction work was completed on December 24, 2015, while the Plaintiff received only KRW 121,418,000 from the Defendant.

In accordance with the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the interest for delay calculated at the rate of 136,532,00 won and 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment, to the day of July 8, 2016, on which the copy of the complaint in this case was served to the defendant from December 25, 2015, which is the day following the completion date of construction in this case, unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff can pay the construction price in the case of delay of the payment period of the construction price in consideration of the circumstances such as that the construction work of the Gwangju system Gwangju factory is awarded to the company and is scheduled to receive construction price from the above company, provisional attachment is made by the subcontractor at another construction site, and the subcontractor fails to receive the construction price. However, the defendant's argument is responding to the plaintiff's claim, but it cannot be accepted as the ground for rejection of the plaintiff's claim.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

arrow