공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 61,70,000 to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff received construction payment of KRW 64,35,00 from the Defendant for the new welfare facility for the aged on the land outside the Hancheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant construction”).
We examine whether the Plaintiff completed the construction work after receiving a supply and demand for the instant construction work from the Defendant.
The evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence for the lack of evidence to prove the authenticity, and the remaining evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the completion of the construction work by receiving a supply of the instant construction from the Defendant.
Next, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff, since he was to perform the construction work upon receiving the contract from the owner of the building and received KRW 100,000 per deliberation from the defendant, and re-subcontracted the construction work.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff received the construction of this case from C and D on November 10, 2014, and the plaintiff may waive the construction of this case while the construction of this case was in progress and the defendant completed the construction after receiving a supply of the remaining construction from the owner. However, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff re-subcontracted the construction of this case to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
Finally, although the Plaintiff renounced the instant construction project and the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the owner to the Plaintiff directly by the owner, while receiving the instant construction project from the owner, it is insufficient to recognize this only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.