하자보수비
1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On February 6, 2014, the Defendant was awarded a contract for KRW 38,00,000 for the construction cost for the interior and kitchen works, etc. of a restaurant with the mutual recognition of removal of the singing room facilities in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C201 and D, “D.”
3. up to 18. The construction was carried out by the Corporation.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)
The Defendant brought a lawsuit against “D”, the title holder of the business registration, seeking payment of KRW 3,850,000 for the remainder of the construction project, as Seoul Central District Court 2015da135790, but was dismissed. At the time, the Plaintiff, the spouse of E, appeared as his/her agent and raised a defense that there was a defect in the construction project.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including paper numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's decision on this safety defense is that the plaintiff's spouse E is a party to the contract of this case, and the plaintiff has no standing to be a party.
On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether there is a right to demand performance or not is a matter to be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, Oct. 7, 2005). The defendant's defense is merely an assertion about the existence of the right to demand performance, which
3. Judgment on the merits
A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's defect repair was requested by the defendant due to the defect that occurred in the defendant's construction, such as the main ventilation, but the plaintiff paid 7,370,000 won to other enterprises because the defendant did not comply with the request, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount at the cost of defect repair.
B. The identity of the party to the judgment constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.
The interpretation of a juristic act is clearly the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of indication.