beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,037,704 as well as 5% per annum from August 29, 2013 to September 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. There is no dispute between the Parties to the facts on which the following facts are based:
The Plaintiff filed a claim for the agreed amount against A with the Jeonju District Court 2008Kadan12578 and paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2008: Provided, That the conciliation was concluded that “A shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 25 million plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2008 to the date of full payment.”
B. On March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure collection order”) regarding “37,037,704 won out of the claim for design service charges for the Defendant of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City B ground building B (hereinafter “instant building”) in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court 2012TTTT1701; and (b) the Defendant was issued a seizure and collection order on March 14, 2012.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 10, the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant and A entered into a service agreement with the Defendant on October 13, 201 and November 9, 201 with respect to the design of the instant building (excluding value-added tax) at KRW 140 million, and the Defendant paid KRW 10 million (including value-added tax) from October 13, 201 to February 29, 2012, prior to the date on which the seizure collection order of the instant building became final and conclusive, from October 13, 201 to February 29, 2012, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to pay the design service cost of KRW 40 million (including value-added tax) at the time of completion of the pleadings. The instant building obtained approval for use on June 4, 2013.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the claim amount and damages for delay collected by the plaintiff according to the collection order of this case among the design service cost of 44 million won to be borne by the defendant against A.
B. The defendant's judgment as to the defendant's assertion is that A changes the conclusion of the building outer wall of this case.