공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On September 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was contracted with the Defendant for the heating works among the remodeling works of the Mamosel located B (hereinafter “instant construction works”) at KRW 19,00,000 per annum and interest rate of 20% per annum. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 9,00,000,000 from the Defendant out of the construction price after completing the said construction works.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed interest rate of KRW 10,000,000 and the agreed interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from October 15, 2014, which is the date of completion of the instant construction work, to the date of full payment.
B. According to each of the following circumstances, each of the evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 11, and 13 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the judgment, the defendant's name and address are indicated at the bottom of the standard subcontract agreement of the construction work of this case with respect to the construction work of this case, and the defendant's name and address are affixed with a seal of the defendant's name. The plaintiff can be found to have received KRW 4,00,00 on October 30, 2014 after the completion of the construction work of this case from the account under the name of the defendant, and each of the items as stated in the evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 11, and 13 as well as the whole purport of oral argument. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of each of the evidence No. 2 and all of the whole arguments, it is difficult to acknowledge that the construction work of this case was contracted by the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost against the Defendant, which was premised on the Defendant’s contract for the instant construction work, is without merit.
① On July 7, 2014, the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “D”) en bloc increases to KRW 880,000,000,000, which includes heating works (i.e., the amount of KRW 1,150,000 on December 17, 2014).