beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a personal entrepreneur (the Plaintiff is a person who lends the business name to the Plaintiff, and the person who actually runs the construction business under the trade name of the Plaintiff is D) who runs the construction business under the name of “C,” and upon the Defendant’s request by the former husband, the Defendant engaged in remodeling on the Defendant’s housing located in North-gu, North Korea (hereinafter “instant housing”) over several occasions, as follows. The Defendant received only KRW 2,00,000 out of the total construction cost of KRW 49,712,390 (= KRW 49,712,390), and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 47,712,390 (= KRW 49,712,390), 2,00,000,000) and damages for delay.
(4) The Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 52,760,00 upon filing the instant lawsuit; however, the construction cost that the Plaintiff finally asserts is deemed to have been 47,712,390. The construction cost at the time of the instant lawsuit seems to have been 47,712,390. On July 7, 2011, KRW 7,300 and waterproof construction work around November 201, 201; KRW 5,880,000 and KRW 4,50,000 repair work around July 2013; around October 2013; around November 10, 2013; around 20,104, 190 and around June 6, 2014; and around KRW 19,298,397,290; and
2. The following circumstances revealed by adding to the overall purport of the evidence and arguments presented by the original Defendant, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s assertion that it engaged in remodeling of the instant housing several times from July 201 to June 2014. However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s demand for performance (Evidence A No. 1 to No. 2-4) and written claim (Evidence A-2-1 to No. 2-4) submitted by the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s implementation of remodeling construction of the instant housing from March 2013 to June 2014. Thus, even if the construction period does not coincide with each other, the Plaintiff’s demand for performance of the said housing performance and the written claim for the said remodeling construction are deemed to have been conducted on or around March 2013.