공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. C Co., Ltd. was awarded a contract for “D landscape road works” that was ordered by the Gangnam National Land Management Office around March 2014 by setting the construction cost of KRW 387,116,190 and the construction period from March 26, 2014 to March 30, 2015.
B. On June 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) determined the construction cost of reinforced concrete construction from C Co., Ltd. to the construction period of KRW 122,170,250, and the construction period of construction from July 1, 2014 to December 30, 2014; and (b) completed the construction by entering into a subcontract.
On November 21, 2014, the Gangwon National Land Management Office issued a direct payment of KRW 115,716,190 to the defendant on November 21, 2014 with the consent of C Co., Ltd.
C. E operates a personal business entity under the trade name of “F”, and “dives installation works among the above landscape road construction works” are subcontracted by the Plaintiff and completed the construction work.
From November 7, 2014 to December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid to E a total of KRW 9.1 million as the subcontract price. D.
G has been registered as an in-house director of C Co., Ltd. around August 2013, while possessing the name of the managing director of C Co., Ltd.
G is the husband of the inside director of the defendant company H.
【In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 3 through 9, evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the fact inquiry results to the chief of the Gangseo National Land Management Office of this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above KRW 10 million and damages for delay to the Plaintiff in this case where the subcontract document written between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not prepared separately, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be acknowledged as it is, given that the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since it is determined that the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be acknowledged as it is, in full view of the following circumstances.
In other words, the plaintiff Gap.