logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.12.21 2018가단514847
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 46 million and the interest rate thereon from May 22, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2016, Defendant B awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for the construction of the instant building D ground (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Plaintiff, Yong-nam Cancer-gun D (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction around October 2016, and Defendant C, the mother of Defendant B, completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant building on November 1, 2016.

C. Around February 15, 2017, Defendant C drafted a written confirmation that he would pay the Plaintiff KRW 66 million to the Plaintiff by February 20, 2017.

After that, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff KRW 20 million out of the paid construction cost of KRW 66 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole argument as to defendant C: Confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the above findings of determination, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of construction payment of KRW 46 million (=66 million-20 million) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 22, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, to the day of full payment, barring special circumstances.

As to this, Defendant B asserted that there was a defect such as water leakage in the building of this case, and that the unpaid construction cost can be paid after the repair of the defect. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above defect occurred due to the Plaintiff’s construction defect. Therefore, the above Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow