beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.06.14 2018나5482

공사대금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the designated parties concluded each subcontract construction contract with E with respect to the interior film, wood, and carbon code work among the interior works of the F apartment G, H, I, J, K, and L (hereinafter “each apartment of this case”) located in the port of Posi, and completed the construction work.

However, the above E is the defendant's partner who uses the name of "M" as the defendant's representative.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,480,00 as the subcontract cost, KRW 5,250,000 to the Selection C, and KRW 1,400,00 to the Selection D.

2. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, E concluded each of the instant apartment buildings with the apartment occupants, each of the instant apartment complex construction contracts includes “M” in the contractor column, and E is acknowledged as having subcontracted part of the instant artificial complex construction to the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

However, in light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, i.e., (i) the account number in the name of E in the account of payment for the construction work; (ii) there is no circumstance that the Defendant appears to have participated in the foregoing interior work before the death of E; and (iii) only the name of E is entered in the written estimate prepared by the Plaintiff and the designated parties; and (iv) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that E is a partner of the Defendant, or that E concluded a subcontract on behalf of the Plaintiff or the designated parties on behalf of the Plaintiff or the designated parties on behalf of the Defendant or the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is without merit to examine further.

3. Conclusion.