공사대금반환청구 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is running two manufacturing businesses with the trade name “C” in the Gu and America City B.
B. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the construction of a double plant (hereinafter “instant construction”).
C. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million out of the construction price as above to the Defendant’s account, but returned the said KRW 30 million on October 14, 2014, and returned it again to the account in the name of D.
On the other hand, on July 14, 2014, the Gyeongbuk District Headquarters under the jurisdiction of the Small and Medium Business Corporation received a loan application from the Plaintiff for the loan of KRW 160 million for the construction fund of a factory from the Plaintiff, and entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff on November 18, 2014. On November 25, 2014, it remitted the Defendant KRW 95 million out of the above funds for the specialization of a micro enterprise to the Defendant.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, witness D's testimony, fact-finding results on the Chief of the Gyeonggi-do Headquarters of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded the instant construction contract with the Defendant via D, who is the Defendant’s employee, and the Defendant suspended the instant construction without completion, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the instant construction contract on May 12, 2015, the Defendant asserts that, as part of the construction cost corresponding to the portion of the construction cost already paid to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 30 million as part of the construction cost corresponding to the portion of the construction cost already paid to the Plaintiff. (2) The Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to conclude the instant construction contract using the Defendant’s name, and as the Plaintiff was mistaken for the Defendant as the owner of the business, the Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff according to the responsibility of the nominal owner under the Commercial Act.
B. Judgment 1
A. The evidence mentioned above as to the claim 1 is as follows. The whole of the statements mentioned in No. 2-1 to No. 2-8 and the purport of the entire arguments are revealed.