beta
춘천지방법원 2015.04.17 2014나1472

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff, which orders the defendants to pay below.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants obtained permission to convert the form and quality of land for the creation of a site in the name of Defendant C and D for five detached houses (multi-household housing site creation before alteration) in the name of Defendant C and D with respect to a 6,662 square meters of Gangwon-gu G forest 23,479 square meters, which Defendant C shared with Defendant C and E (around July 2010, the Defendants, as married couple, obtained permission to convert the form and quality of land for the creation of a site due to entry into a detached house and an entry into a detached house on July 22, 2010, and permission to occupy and use a road for the purpose of entering a detached house with respect to 50 square meters of land prior to H on July 26, 2010 (a change).

B. Since then, in G forest land, nine parcels with a total of 6,537 square meters in M, N orO are divided, and permission for mountainous district conversion was granted from the head of Pyeongtaek-gun on May 2, 201 for the purpose of a detached house and entry into a forest.

C. The Plaintiff introduced P from October 2, 2012 to November 1, 2012, which Defendant B opened Q, etc. as the site manager, and started excavation construction in the construction of a site for detached houses and access roads.

However, as to the above G land and each of the above lands divided from Defendant C, D, and E (hereinafter “instant land”), notwithstanding the co-ownership with three persons, the right to collateral security was established on December 19, 2008, and the right to collateral security was provided as collateral for Defendant C’s obligations.

E. around July 2013, Defendant B purchased shares of D and E in relation to the land of Pyeongtaek-gun in Gangwon-do and finally became co-owned by Defendant B and C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5; the consideration and design work of this court; the fact inquiry result of Pyeongtaek-gun; the testimony and part of R's testimony of the witness Q of the trial court and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following circumstances in the establishment of the claim for construction cost, the Defendants excavated the Plaintiff for commercial activities.