침출수처리대금
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. On May 2018, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with a limited liability company E (hereinafter “E”) entrusted with the authority to conclude a contract by the Defendants and a limited liability company E (hereinafter “E”) for the treatment of the water generated from wastes buried in F in the following cities: according to the instant contract, five companies, including the Defendants, etc., equally share the disposal price and pay it to the Plaintiff through the following cities.
In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendants did not pay some of the price paid in September 2018 and the amount paid in October 2018, as well as the amount paid in September 2018, and thus, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 24,054,00 in equal shares, and the delay damages.
2. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including numbers), and the overall purport of arguments, i.e., ① it is difficult to deem Eul to conclude the contract of this case with the authority delegated by the defendants (the contract of this case (the certificate No. 1) is stated as the parties and E is the representative among them, but there is only the party’s corporate seal affixed to E, and there is no document attached to the party’s column to know that Eul was delegated the authority to conclude the contract of this case without the defendants’ corporate seal affixed to E’s corporate seal affixed, and there is no document attached to know that Eul was delegated with the authority to conclude the contract of this case). ② The defendants appears to have paid the defendants the money they requested to pay, including the money claimed by the plaintiff as unpaid payment in accordance with the Work Convention concluded with the Hysan-si and the defendants. In light of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the right to directly seek the contract of this.
Therefore, it is true.