beta
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.06.10 2015가단719

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On July 201, 2013, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a construction contract verbally to the effect that the construction work should be performed at KRW 1.5 million per unit of housing with the labor cost of KRW 3 million per unit of housing as the labor cost of KRW 4,500,000 per unit of housing, and completed the said construction work from the beginning of July 2013 to September 30, 2013.

In addition, the Plaintiff did not receive value-added tax of KRW 5,400,000 on the housing roof constructed by the Defendant immediately before the said construction work.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff a total of KRW 1.8 million for housing 6 million, KRW 6 million for 4 roof construction expenses, value-added tax of KRW 5.4 million, and delay damages for this amount.

2. The defendant's defense prior to the merits is the defendant's defense that the plaintiff and the parties to the contract for construction work are the same as the dong Southern Housing Co., Ltd., and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful against the defendant who is not qualified

However, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted in the performance suit since the plaintiff's assertion as the party to the performance obligation is qualified as the defendant.

3. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone as to the cause of the claim is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the whole pleadings, the party who entered into the contract for construction can only recognize the fact that the Plaintiff is not the defendant but the company of the East Yellow Housing.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant cannot be accepted even if the payment of the above contract was not determined.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.