beta
수원지방법원 2016.02.18 2015나24536

공사대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. On April 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the heating pipeline construction work of the Jung-gu, Seosan-gu, 603 Dong 406 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). Since the construction work was completed on April 26, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said construction cost and damages for delay.

On April 2014, the defendant asserted that the construction contract was entered into with D, a construction business operator, with the price of KRW 45 million for the instant apartment, and that the construction contract was not entered into separately with the plaintiff. The heating pipeline construction works of the plaintiff are included in the above tegical construction works, and all of the tegical construction works are paid to D, so long as the above tegical construction works are paid to D, the plaintiff cannot comply with the claim of this case.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the fact that the heating pipeline work was completed in the apartment of this case, namely, the fact that the Defendant does not specifically dispute the fact that the heating pipeline work was completed in the apartment of this case. However, D, which concluded a construction contract with the Defendant, stated that the heating pipeline construction was not included in the contents of the above interior construction contract, and there was no details on the heating pipeline construction work even in the estimate of the above construction contract, and the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the construction cost of KRW 1.5 million after the completion of the construction of this case, and sent the content-certified mail by demanding the Defendant to pay the construction cost of KRW 1.5 million after the completion of the construction of this case. The fact that the heating pipeline construction contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, regardless of the artificial park construction contract between the Defendant and D can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the Defendant completed the instant construction work on April 26, 2014 by the Plaintiff on the date when the Plaintiff completed the said construction work.