용역비
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Defendant was awarded a contract for removal works among B remodeling works (hereinafter “instant works”) and subcontracted the relevant works to C (hereinafter “C”).
Accordingly, around December 201, D, an employee of C, entered into a service contract to entrust the Plaintiff with the collection and transportation of construction waste related to the instant construction project in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff performed the service in accordance with the above service contract.
[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 3 to 10, the witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted (1) The Plaintiff provided services upon being entrusted by the Defendant for the collection, transportation, etc. of construction waste related to the instant construction project.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay 79,480,000 won for the service price.
(2) Even if the Defendant did not conclude the above service contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant leased the name to C, and thus, is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. (1) First, according to the testimony of the witness D as to whether the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the collection, transportation, etc. of construction waste in relation to the instant construction project, the evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 8 can be acknowledged that the evidence No. 3, 7, and 8 was prepared in the name of the Defendant Company by D, who is an employee of D, the Defendant Company, and there is no other evidence to prove that D was authorized to represent the Defendant Company. Thus, the above evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 8 cannot be used as evidence, and the above assertion No. 3, 7, and 8 cannot be admitted as evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.
(2) Furthermore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent the name to C, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the above assertion only with the testimony of the public health team and witness D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. Conclusion.