공사대금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the instant lawsuits, KRW 177,823,270 and damages for delay.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. As to the Plaintiff’s seeking the payment of the unpaid construction cost and additional construction cost under the instant construction contract, the Defendant first asserted that the Plaintiff and F jointly received the instant construction work, and that the Plaintiff’s claim for the unpaid construction cost and additional construction cost fall under the partnership of the partnership (partnership) comprised of the Plaintiff and F, and that the instant lawsuit filed only by the Plaintiff is unlawful, even though the lawsuit seeking the payment is an inherent necessary co-litigation.
In accordance with the statement No. 1, F is recognized as the fact that F participated in the second contractor of the instant construction contract, and signed, sealed, or stamped.
However, only the above facts and evidence Nos. 13, 6-3 through 16, 9-1 through 3, 10, 14, and 15, are insufficient to recognize that F is the substantial party to the instant construction contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 5 and 13 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness F of the first instance trial, F, who was the defendant, introduced the plaintiff to the defendant to execute the instant construction on his behalf, and participated in the instant construction contract as a second contractor within the meaning of taking charge of provisional trade in cooperation with the progress of the instant construction contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant also paid the construction price only to the plaintiff, but did not pay it to F. However, although the defendant asserted that he paid the construction price of KRW 19,00,000 to F on August 8, 2012, the defendant claimed that he paid the construction price of KRW 19,00,000 to F on his behalf, it is insufficient to recognize it on the sole basis of the evidence No. 14, while F requested for 20,000,000