beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.09.05 2014가단24765

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 2012, the Plaintiff was commissioned by the Defendant to repair the defect of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing C (hereinafter “instant construction”) that the Defendant performed by the Defendant, and continued to work for KRW 29,530,000 as the construction cost from July 31, 2012 to September 28, 2012, but the Plaintiff was paid KRW 16 million among them, and was not paid the remainder 1,353,00 won.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking construction cost under the instant court No. 2012 Ghana145426, but additionally repaired the defects and the construction cost is KRW 3 million.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the claim amount, including the sum of the above construction cost of KRW 16.53 million and the interest on the claim amount at the time of the above small amount of claim.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 7 as well as the entire pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiff actually carried out the instant construction project, and that some of the construction cost was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Defendant’s representative director D may be recognized.

However, the Defendant asserts that the instant construction project was not supplied to the Plaintiff, but supplied to the company, a specialized waterproof business entity, and therefore, we examine whether the Plaintiff can be deemed a party to the instant construction contract.

B. Considering the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, Nos. 3, 5, 8, 1, and 3, the following: (a) the Defendant: (b) reported that the Defendant may repair the defects of a house bond in the name of a stock company E; (c) contacted the Plaintiff who is the chief of the office in charge; and (d) claimed that the Plaintiff first sought the Defendant for counseling with the chief of the office; (b) the estimate submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence for the construction cost is also prepared by the “F of the stock company”; and (c) the Plaintiff himself is the “Person A:” and the Plaintiff is the “Person A” after the completion of the construction work.