노임
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion was subcontracted to KRW 31,340,00 among the apartment house construction works of the second floor C in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant construction works”), and was awarded a subcontract for additional construction works of KRW 6,032,90 on March 22, 2016, and completed the wooden engineering works among each of the above construction works, and paid the cost of temporary materials and materials. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 21,120,00 for wooden construction works, KRW 4,875,00 for temporary materials, KRW 3,177,90 for material costs, KRW 29,172,90 for material costs.
2. In the contract for work, the contractor seeking the payment of remuneration for the completion of the work is obliged to assert and prove the completion of the work. As such, the contractor seeking the payment of the remuneration for the completion of the work is required to present his/her assertion and proof as to the completion or the completion of the work;
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da26684 delivered on November 22, 1994). Furthermore, in the case of a contract for construction works, even if the contract is rescinded and the part is not completed, if the construction is considerably advanced and the restoration to its original state would incur serious social and economic losses, and the completed part would benefit the contractor, the contract for construction works is invalidated only for the completed part and the contractor is delivered to the contractor as it is, and the contractor is obligated to pay reasonable remuneration in consideration of the height of the contract.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da43454 delivered on February 25, 1997). Where the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work from the Defendant, and the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the images of Gap’s evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 3-1 through No. 7, the Plaintiff is deemed to have partially carried out the instant construction work, but there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, and rather, the testimony of Eul’s evidence Nos. 5 and 6, witness D, and E.