건설장비 용역대금
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The purport of the claim and the appeal.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who provides services using equipment during construction in the trade name of “C”.
The Plaintiff was introduced through E operating “D” to the Defendant.
B. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to have the construction site of the construction site of the construction site of the Construction site of the Construction site of the Construction site of the Construction site of the Construction site of the Construction site of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the construction site of the construction site of the instant construction site”).
Accordingly, during the 13-day period from April 2, 2018 to June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff engaged in cateral work, such as cultivating materials related to wood trees, steel bars, and raining construction at the construction site of this case (hereinafter “instant cateral work”). (C)
The service price incurred from the above settlement work is KRW 5,610,00 (including value added taxes) (hereinafter “the service price of this case”). The fact that there is no dispute about the basis for recognition, entry of Gap 1, 3, and Eul 1 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff is obligated to pay the service price of this case to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff received a request from the defendant for a while in the construction site of this case.
2) Since the party to the contract for the lease of the instant tea project is the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, as the principal contractor of the instant new construction project, (hereinafter referred to as “G Co., Ltd.”), the Plaintiff shall claim the instant service payment to the G Co., Ltd., which is the Plaintiff.
The defendant is only the head of a wooden Ban of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "H") which is a subordinate company of the G MU and agreed to confirm the work.
B. 1) In full view of the above facts of recognition, and the following circumstances recognized by the statement of evidence and evidence No. 2 of the above evidence, and the witness I’s testimony and the entire purport of oral argument, the Defendant concluded a lease and service contract on behalf of the LAB and the KAH on behalf of the LAB.
In conclusion, it is difficult to see the Plaintiff.