공사대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) drafted a construction contract on March 18, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “construction contract of March 18, 2013”) stating that the construction works among the new construction works of Pyeongtaek-sitel (hereinafter referred to as “instant officetel”) shall be subcontracted to the Plaintiff as of April 15, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction works”). B. The Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “E Co., Ltd.”) changed from “E”) to “B Co., Ltd.” on June 4, 2013; and again changed to the name as of March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a contract for construction works (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction works”) among the new construction works of the instant officetel as of March 85,160,000, and as of April 30, 2013 to the effect that the said construction works will be subcontracted to the Plaintiff as of March 30, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. On August 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a “standard subcontract agreement for private construction works” with C and Pyeongtaek-si D, and the construction amount was KRW 140,160,000, and the construction period was set up until March 20, 2013. (2) Thereafter, C was actually the same company for the purpose of evading obligations, and was the same company, and was the other Defendant (at the time of the time of the use of the corporate name “E”), thereby pretending to discontinue its business.
As such, as C discontinued its business, the Defendant continued the instant construction.
3) The Plaintiff, who became aware of the fact that C had attempted to evade its debt as above, tried to separate the construction contract under the above A.1 in order to provide the grounds for filing a claim against the Defendant to the extent that C did not demand the payment of the non-claimed construction cost even if the Plaintiff already renounced the payment of the 55 million won amount issued a tax invoice in C.
Accordingly, on March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff is about KRW 55 million for the construction cost with C and the flag cost.