(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가단207240

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가단207240

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,00,000 as well as 15% per annum from November 14, 2015 to the full payment.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 and the entire purport of the pleadings:

On August 30, 2015, the Plaintiff received orders from the Defendant as of August 31, 2015, by setting the construction period from August 31, 2015 to September 10, 2015, the construction cost of construction KRW 44,00,000, and the construction cost of construction as of October 15, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”). B.

The Plaintiff completed construction under the instant construction contract, but the Defendant paid KRW 22,00,000 among the agreed construction cost, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 22,00,000.

2. According to the allegations and the above findings, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 22,00,000,000, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 14, 2015 to the date following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff, after the final payment was made.

As to this, the defendant paid 24,565,250 won as the construction cost, the defendant asserted that the unpaid amount is 19,434,750 won, but as to the portion exceeding 22,00,000 won which the plaintiff was paid, there is no evidence to support the defendant's repayment. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant, unlike the agreement, set the contract price under the construction contract of this case, too much less than the appropriate contract price. Unlike the agreement, the plaintiff differs from the difference between Scarfals, the defendant did not supply the glass necessary to install the Scarfal on the Scarfal, installed a lower level carpet, used a lower level of timber than the agreed one, the customer's seat and the Kafe did not supply them.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단75976

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.06.13 2016가단9155

-광주지방법원순천지원 2014.12.23 2014가단4402

-인천지방법원 2015.05.29 2014나154

-서울서부지방법원 2016.10.14 2015가단240983