beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 250,000,000 and KRW 125,000,000 among them, from December 31, 2016 to December 125.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment project in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant project area”) in order to implement a housing redevelopment project.
B. On March 24, 2011, the Defendants were awarded a subcontract for the removal of buildings, etc. within the instant business area from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant removal works”).
C. On August 12, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants for the sale of scrap metal, non-stock, etc. generated in the course of the instant removal works for KRW 250 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) and set the timing for the payment of the purchase price as follows.
Upon completion of 50% of the scheduled date of payment for the removal rate (excluding value-added tax) 50% of the scheduled date of payment for 50%, 50% of the total 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 100% of the 50% of the completion of the 100% of the 100% of the 50% of the completion of the 100% of the 50% of the 50% of the 30% of the completion of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the 50% of the removal
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff and KRW 1250 million from December 29, 2014, which was 30 days after the completion of 50% of the removal of the instant case, and for the remainder of KRW 125 million from July 23, 2018, which was 30 days after the completion of 100% of the removal of the instant case.
B. The Defendants, at around March 2017, continued to perform 50.81% of the removal of the instant case. As such, the Defendants’ obligation to pay KRW 125 million arises after 30 days thereafter, and the removal of the instant case is not completed until then, 9% of the fair rate, and thus, the Defendants did not have any duty to pay the remainder of KRW 125 million.
In addition, Defendant C has a claim for the construction cost incurred in the process of dismantling and removing asbestos against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.