beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 3,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from January 28, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of materials and construction contract on luminous, visible, and calcultain installation works (i.e., value of KRW 140,000,000, value of value of KRW 14,000,000), and the delivery period from March 17, 2014 to April 10, 2014.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a modified contract to change the said construction contract from KRW 154,00,000 to KRW 110,000 (including value-added tax).
C. On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the supply and construction of materials pursuant to the above contract.
The Plaintiff received KRW 77,00,000,000, out of the construction cost of KRW 110,000 from the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 33,00,000 (=total construction cost of KRW 110,00,000 - KRW 77,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 28, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.
As to this, the Defendant asserted that since the Plaintiff completed the supply of goods from April 10, 2014 to April 25, 2014, the agreed period of which was delayed from April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff should deduct KRW 11,550,000 from the compensation for delay. However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 2, the Defendant’s assertion that the construction period was changed from April 10, 2014 to April 25, 2014 when concluding the modified contract as above, it can be recognized that the Defendant concluded the modified contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the construction period from April 10 to April
In addition, the defendant alleged that it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's request since it did not receive a warranty against defects from the plaintiff, but it can be recognized that the plaintiff's obligation to deliver a warranty against defects and the defendant's obligation to pay construction price concurrently.