공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On September 2, 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was subcontracted by the Defendant for the Seo-gu Daejeon-gu Remodeling’s remodeling project by lending the name of the Plaintiff, Inc.
The plaintiff suspended the construction by the cooperation of the head of the field office D, and re-subcontracted the remodeling work to the F of the E company.
However, the name of the sub-subcontract is not the name of the plaintiff or corporation, but the name of the defendant was concluded in the name of the defendant.
The defendant shall pay 170 million won (1.45 billion won for the construction work - 1.28 billion won for the re-subcontracted construction work directly paid by the defendant - the amount of 1.28 billion won for the roof construction work executed by the plaintiff and 33 billion won for the total amount of 2.3 billion won for the roof construction work executed by the plaintiff.
However, as the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the construction cost from the Plaintiff on March 28, 2011, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 170 million, and KRW 30 million, total of KRW 33 million, paid to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the construction cost from the Plaintiff on March 28, 2011.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff completed the roof construction work of KRW 33 million as the roof construction cost.
There is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to give 33 million won to the plaintiff as the roof construction cost.
This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.
B. There is no dispute over the fact that the subcontract price or acquisition amount of KRW 170 million was made by the subcontractor, who is the Defendant and the subcontractor, and the subcontractor, who is the Plaintiff. However, the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff loaned the name of the Plaintiff, and entered into a subcontract construction contract with the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the subcontract construction cost is not accepted. 2) The bond acquisition agreement (No. 3-1) submitted by the Plaintiff submitted by the Plaintiff is without the signature or seal of the representative director of the land transmission company, and only the corporate seal is affixed, and the corporate seal is affixed.
The evidence presented alone.