공사대금 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3, witness Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings. A.
On October 30, 2014, the defendant registered the housing construction and sales business in the name of Dobong Tax Office C.
B. On March 19, 2015, the Defendant’s Branch B concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff engaging in elevator production installation works under the Defendant’s name to the contract amount of KRW 36,850,00 (including value-added tax) for the elevator production installation works of building C located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction works”) and the construction period from March 19, 2015 to May 30, 2015.
C. On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction by obtaining a certificate of elevator inspection from the Minister of Public Safety and Security and delivering it to C.
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice with the Defendant as the recipient of the instant construction project, and the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant and completed the instant construction project on July 10, 2015, by receiving part of the construction cost under the Defendant’s name.
Nevertheless, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 8,600,000 in total on six occasions between March 19, 2015 and April 15, 2015, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 28,250,000 (i.e., the construction cost of the instant case - KRW 36,850,000 - KRW 8,600,000).
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 28,250,000 and delay damages.
B. The Defendant did not have concluded the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case.