logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.08.11 2015가단10663
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,360,000 and its amount shall be 6% per annum from November 1, 2014 to May 14, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) on July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the installation of the light water supply system with the Defendant for KRW 165,500,000 (in addition to surtax), and the contract deposit (30% of the contract amount) between the Defendant and the Defendant is agreed to be paid at the time of application for the pre-use inspection; (b) on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment (50% of the contract amount) at the time of application for the pre-use inspection; and (c) on October 31, 2014, the remainder (20% of the contract amount) at the time of application for the pre-use inspection; and (d) on October 31, 2014, the fact that the said construction was completed and the Defendant did not receive the remainder of KRW 30,360,000

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction price of KRW 30,360,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 1, 2014 to May 14, 2015, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion that although the plaintiff agreed to use the connecting wire between the voltager and the board, the plaintiff's use of the domestic three main body products, the plaintiff's failure of inspection of Korean power was judged due to the use of the low-price subordinate products, and thereby, the plaintiff suffered losses due to defective construction, such as delayed air. However, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

arrow