정산금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff's assertion as the cause of the plaintiff's assertion is difficult to understand the correct purport of the plaintiff's assertion because the contents of each written brief submitted after the complaint and the subsequent written brief are continuously changed, but it is as follows.
In other words, the Plaintiff, in relation to D's new construction works in Busan Dongdong-gu, Busan (hereinafter "the instant construction works"), was partially executed by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, as the construction cost, remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant on February 27, 2014. As a result, the Defendant’s actual construction works are merely equivalent to KRW 7 million and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the difference to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff asserted that the construction of this case was contracted to the General Construction Co., Ltd., and the License and General Construction Co., Ltd. subcontracted the whole of the above construction to E, and E re-subcontracted the electrical construction to the defendant.
In the early stage of the construction work, the Defendant transferred KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff’s account, and the construction was suspended at the Plaintiff’s request. The Defendant’s actual construction cost is equivalent to KRW 26,365,00.
The defendant has been transferred KRW 30 million to the payment of the construction price and the loan after submitting the waiver of the construction and the waiver of the lien.
On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with General Construction Co., Ltd. for the instant construction project at KRW 1.5 billion. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract for the entire construction project with E.
Notwithstanding the above forms, in fact, a person who actually received a contract from the Plaintiff for the instant construction work is E, and a comprehensive construction company is merely a license loan.
Since then, at the request of the License Comprehensive Construction Company, the License Lease Company was changed from the above Company to the License Comprehensive Construction Company.
E around August 29, 2013, the contract amount of the electrical construction of this case between the defendant and the defendant 67,73.