공사대금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Around September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) for construction work for E-sales house (including value added tax) and completed the contract.
On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff received down payment of KRW 38,000,000 from B.
With respect to the remaining construction cost of KRW 5,500,000 (i.e., KRW 93,500,000 - KRW 38,000,000), the Plaintiff received the following payment notes from the Defendant, who is the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.:
A debtor [B] A] creditor of the second floor of the F building in Seoul, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, the representative director of the Co., Ltd. [A] D Company A - Contents - Eul paid KRW 38,00,000 among the total contract amount of KRW 93,50,000 (including value added tax) to the E field ordered to Gap, and the amount of KRW 55,50,000 was unpaid.
To this end, it promises to plan installment payments.
The first division: The second division of KRW 10,000,000 on April 31, 2013: from May 31, 2013 to 5,500,000 to 6: B shall comply with the payment plan presented to A on September 14, 2013; and A shall issue a tax invoice immediately after making payment to B.
On April 12, 2013, a copy of the business registration certificate attached to the attached Form, the representative director C, and the plaintiff was paid KRW 5,950,000 to B on June 25, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion (i.e., the plaintiff's assertion) received the letter of payment in this case with the defendant's obligation to pay the construction price of B, and the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the remainder of the construction price of KRW 49,550,00 (=5,000,000 - 5,950,000) and damages for delay.
D. The defendant's argument is the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and it is only prepared by B in the sense that the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. will perform the debt as in this case, and it is individually prepared by B in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.