beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 738,562 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from December 16, 2016 to February 23, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Around December 26, 2014, C operating “B” entered into a contract for a construction project with a new E (hereinafter “foreign company”) located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction project”). Since the said contract cannot be issued due to credit problems, C renounced the said contract for a construction project.
B. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant, with the trade name of “F”, concluded a construction contract with the construction period from May 1, 2015 to October 30, 2015 with respect to the instant construction project with respect to the Nonparty Company and the instant construction project, with the introduction of “F” as the contract amounting to KRW 450 million (excluding additional tax).
C. On March 3, 2015, the Defendant concluded a subcontract with C on the same terms as the construction period and the construction amount as above with respect to the instant construction work.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, testimony of witness G and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff received a subcontract for the instant construction project from the Defendant and completed the construction project until May 2016, 2016, asserting that the Defendant did not pay KRW 111,400,000 out of the construction cost of KRW 198,000, and sought payment of the unpaid construction cost of KRW 111,40,000.
Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work from the Defendant in light of the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 and the witness G and C’s testimony as to whether the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work from the Defendant. Rather, as seen earlier, the Defendant provided a subcontract for the instant construction work contracted from the non-party company to C rather than the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work from the Defendant is without merit without having to further examine it.
(b) money collected;