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.
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff is a business entity that engages in the business of leasing and contracting construction machinery under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of steel structure business, steel framed business, construction business, etc.
D Around May 2015, around E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) were awarded a contract for the construction of a factory on the site of Pyeongtaek-si G (hereinafter “instant construction”).
In August 2015, the instant construction was suspended due to the lack of smooth payment of construction cost.
D When it is no longer possible to proceed with the construction of this case due to the reasons such as delinquency in tax, etc., D agreed to continue the construction of this case by borrowing the construction cost under the name of the Corporation with the consent of E and F, the owner of the building, as the owner of the building, and with the consent of E and F.
Accordingly, on August 17, 2015 and September 4, 2015, the Defendant drafted a contract agreement on F and each of the instant construction works in order to take the form of subcontracting the instant construction works to D.
D On December 16, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Defendant a letter of demand stating that “each company participating in the construction works in connection with the failure to pay the construction cost of the instant construction works will deliver the power of attorney to the Defendant so that each company may directly claim the Defendant.”
D, even after the instant construction was actually performed, and in 2017, it was rendered a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit claiming construction cost against E, etc., the owner of the building.
Upon D’s request, from June 1, 2015 to December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff continued construction by inserting sckes and dump trucks, etc. at the construction site of this case. On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 15,840,000 to the person who is supplied with the Defendant.
On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 18,690,00,000, in total, for the issuance of tax invoices (15,840,000) and for the work (2,850,000) in December 2015.