청구이의
1. On February 23, 2017, Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gauri2951, the Defendant’s payment for construction work against the Plaintiff.
1. The Defendant, upon receiving an order from the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of construction cost claim against the Plaintiff under the Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gaso2951, U.S. 2951, supra, on the following grounds: (a) even though the Defendant completed the construction and installation of the automatic set of KRW 1 set of KRW 3,50,000, out of the construction cost of KRW 5,280,000; and (b) the Defendant did not receive the remainder of KRW 1,780,000.
On February 23, 2017, the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation as stipulated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, stating that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the above KRW 1,780,000 and delay damages therefor (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”). The said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on March 22, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 5, purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not conclude a construction contract with the Defendant.
D, the husband of the Plaintiff, entered into a contract for construction with E (F) for the cel remodeling project, and only the Defendant was awarded a subcontract from F.
Even if it is not so, the defendant's claim for the construction cost has expired after the lapse of three years.
Therefore, there is no obligation for the Plaintiff to pay the construction cost of KRW 1,780,000 to the Defendant, so compulsory execution based on the instant decision of performance recommendation should be dismissed.
B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant is an employee of the plaintiff is obligated to pay 1,780,000 won to the defendant, since the construction work is conducted under the F's order.
3. In full view of the purport of the written evidence No. 1 in the judgment No. 1, it is recognized that the fact that the name in the ordering column of the pertinent order ordering form was written “Cururur” and the person in charge was written “F” is stated as “F.”
However, in full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the plaintiff's husband is the plaintiff's husband.