logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.05.26 2018가단73345
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) 40,000,000 won;

(b) KRW 8,675,000 and for this, April 2018.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The defendant is a stock company established for the purpose of indoor construction business.

The Plaintiff newly constructed a cosmetic, office building, etc. (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the steel bars structure slive roof structure slives, cosmetics, and completed the registration of initial ownership on February 12, 2018 after obtaining approval for use on February 6, 2018.

On January 6, 2018, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant for interior works on the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”); the contract of this case provides that construction cost shall be KRW 260 million (including value-added tax); the construction period shall be from January 6, 2018 to February 11, 2018; and the delayed payment rate shall be 3/1,000 of the construction cost per day.

By March 1, 2018, the Defendant entered into a construction project under the instant contract, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 220 million out of the construction price to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings] The defendant's defect during the construction under the contract of this case, the non-execution or modification of the contract of this case, asserted by the plaintiff as to the claim of main lawsuit. The plaintiff sought damages in lieu of defect repair against the defendant.

(However, it is deemed that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay compensation for delay in accordance with the agreed rate for the 18 days of delayed construction work, even though the contract term of the instant construction work was from January 6, 2018 to February 11, 2018.

The design drawing and spectrum provided by the Plaintiff is a reference matter, not an absolute standard to determine the scope of construction works, the non-construction, or the defect under the instant contract, but a contract draft (Evidence No. 1) prepared on January 6, 2018 is the content of the actual contract, and thus, it should be determined based on whether the contract was defective.

arrow