공사대금
1. The Defendant: 219,89,880 won to the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from November 1, 2014 to November 25, 2015.
The summary of the case is the case where the Plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid construction cost under the contract of the Defendant and C (hereinafter “C”) with respect to the construction of pipes under a subcontract by the Defendant and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and the Plaintiff is also liable for the payment of the construction cost under the contract due to abuse of corporate personality.
In fact, C such as the establishment of the defendant and C was established on January 19, 2005, and D was appointed as the representative director.
After the Defendant was established with the trade name of “Co. E” on April 9, 2010, the registration of alteration was completed on September 8, 2010.
The plaintiff in the basic transactional relationship with the original defendant is a personal business operator who performs the pipeline construction works for water supply and sewerage systems in the name of "F", and has maintained the transactional relationship of performing the pipeline construction works under a subcontract from the defendant since 2010.
From January 24, 2013 to October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was organized as the Plaintiff’s construction details, the remittance details, and the balance of the transaction (final 219,89,880 won) in the table, and the Plaintiff submitted the document stating “C balance 72,405,600 separate”) as the evidence No. 1.
The corresponding parts of the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as the "attached Table") shall be as specified in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as the "attached Table"), except for the tax invoices and non-scriptive column
【In the absence of dispute, the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 2, the issues of the whole pleadings, the purport of the arguments, and the authenticity of Gap's evidence No. 1 (Dispute No. 1) / The plaintiff's assertion / The plaintiff's assertion 1] The defendant company's employee verified Eul's unpaid construction price while copying the trade books with the plaintiff.
[Co. 1] The defendant's counterclaim is denied.
The defendant's unpaid construction price, etc. (2) [the plaintiff's assertion] The defendant shall pay the unpaid construction price of 219,89,880 won according to the evidence No. 1.
[Dissenting of the Defendant] The Defendant shall set the period of G Postnatal Care Center in the Gu.