양수금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the claim C entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on the instant land D and E-Land Building (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si, and the instant building, and completed the said new construction work, but did not receive the construction cost of KRW 290 million from the Defendant.
C on August 6, 2014, transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for construction cost of KRW 290 million against the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the said transfer on August 12, 2014.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above contract price claim KRW 290 million and the delay damages.
2. The Plaintiff’s claim for determination is premised on the premise that C has a claim for construction cost of KRW 290 million against the Defendant by concluding a contract for the construction of the instant building with the Defendant and completing the construction work.
As of September 15, 2013 between C and F, a contract agreement was prepared between C and F to contract price of KRW 200 million for the new construction of the building in this case. The said contract agreement contains the content that F will prepare a contract with B on behalf of the principal contractor C and that the construction cost would be paid by C; on the same day, the contract agreement was made by the Defendant to contract the construction cost of the building in this case to F for KRW 200 million; the Defendant was transferred the name of the owner of the building in this case from G as the owner of the building in this case on December 30, 2013, and on May 1, 2014, the fact that the ownership transfer registration of the land in this case and the registration of ownership preservation on the building in this case was not disputed between the parties, or that the registration of ownership transfer was completed by evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 2.
However, the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 17, and the whole purport of the pleadings can be considered.