동업건축공사 이익금 반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a partnership agreement with respect to the construction of a new multi-household house on the ground B of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) and divided one half of the construction income.
Since the above construction cost of KRW 60 million is KRW 60,000,000,000,000 is a profit, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,000 and damages for delay.
B. The Plaintiff and C introduced the instant construction to the Defendant, and the Defendant concluded the contract, and paid KRW 10 million as the introduction fee to C.
The Defendant did not enter into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant construction project, and there was no profit that the Defendant acquired by executing the instant construction project due to the occurrence of additional costs.
2. The Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff and C on May 18, 2015 under the condition that the instant construction was the contract price of KRW 493,950,00 and the additional construction cost for the service area per parking. The fact that the instant construction was completed, and that the Defendant paid KRW 9,670,000 to C is not a dispute between the parties, or that the Defendant paid KRW 9,670,00 to C is recognized by the purport of the entry in the evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings.
However, as to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant construction project, the witness C’s testimony, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, is unclear, and it is insufficient to recognize that there was a partnership relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant solely based on the aforementioned testimony, because it is unclear that “the Plaintiff had to work as the Defendant,” and that “the Defendant had ordered the Plaintiff to work as a vice-chairperson, and to work as a framework business operator.” In addition, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff played any role in the instant construction project, and the Plaintiff has to reflect the profit.