물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Defendant’s contract for the A general industrial complex development project (hereinafter “instant industrial complex construction project”) with the A general industrial complex construction project from Ansan-si on April 29, 201 as of January 28, 201, and the total construction cost of KRW 2,124,126,50 ( KRW 2,466,930,000 on March 8, 2013; KRW 2,459,000 on September 10, 2013; KRW 2,324,91,340,000 on September 2, 2013; and finally, it was changed to KRW 2,324,91,340 on September 10, 2013.
2. The gist of the parties’ assertion asserts that the Defendant concluded a continuous supply contract with the Plaintiff on May 1, 2013 on aggregate necessary for the road packing construction among the instant industrial complex construction works, and that the Plaintiff received aggregate supply amounting to KRW 46,768,00 from the Plaintiff from around that time until August 31, 2013, and thus, the Plaintiff should pay KRW 46,768,00 for aggregate price and damages for delay pursuant to the said contract.
As to this, the Defendant concluded a contract for aggregate supply with the Plaintiff, since the instant industrial complex creation work was en bloc subcontracted to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and was not involved in the said construction work, the Defendant did not conclude a contract for aggregate supply with the Plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof, since the judgment source and the defendant's continuous contract for the supply of aggregate have been concluded.
In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 4 and Eul evidence 6, the defendant made a lump sum subcontract around April 29, 201 by setting the time limit for completion of the construction of the industrial complex in this case by January 28, 2013, Eul failed to observe the time limit for completion of the construction, and Eul performed the construction until September 2013. However, it is found that the construction was discontinued without completion of the construction, which eventually seems to be contrary or against Gap evidence 6, 9, and Eul evidence 2-1 through 5, and it is not believed that the construction of the road packaging is not conducted during the supply period asserted by the plaintiff.