공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) with respect to the Egypt repair and maintenance works for Egypted Egypted Egypted Egypted D (hereinafter “A”), the construction period from September 1, 2015 to October 20, 2015; and (b) the construction cost of KRW 158,000,000 for the construction cost; and (c) the Egyptd typhoon damage restoration works (hereinafter “ typhoon restoration works”) (hereinafter “C”); and (d) “each of the instant construction works”.
The construction period from September 1, 2015 to October 20, 2015, and the construction cost of KRW 116 million, respectively.
B. C is not more than F on September 1, 2015.
c) On November 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) paid the progress payment of KRW 81 million to C for the guest room repair work; and (b) paid the progress payment of KRW 70 million to C for the typhoon restoration work; (c) paid KRW 28 million to C for the settlement of overdue wages of G who is a sewage supplier of C on January 11, 2016; (b) paid the unpaid progress payment of KRW 76 million to the unpaid progress payment of KRW 1357 on March 21, 2016; and (c) deposited the Plaintiff and C as the deposited money in Seoul Southern District Court No. 1357 on March 21, 2016 with the purport of each of subparagraphs 1 through 6 (in the event that there is no dispute over this Court; (c) the inquiry results on the fact that there is no evidence in this Court; and (d) the purport of each of the arguments as to the whole number of the pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 is primarily asserted by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works of this case with the defendant, and all of the above construction works have been completed, and the defendant is obligated to pay the construction price to the plaintiff.
Preliminaryly, if there is no construction contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant would make unjust enrichment equivalent to the construction cost incurred by the plaintiff without any legal ground.