beta
Text
1. Of the part against Defendant C in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount shall constitute the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts of the case are found to be without dispute between the parties or by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including the number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply):
A. On October 2014, the Plaintiff, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) concluded a contract with the ordering person, the Defendant Company’s agent, and the Plaintiff as the contractor for remodelling of the model model housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) with respect to the Intervenor’s E-House Construction Project (hereinafter “instant project”). From October 1, 2014 to November 15, 2014, the contract was concluded for construction cost of KRW 659,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) (excluding value-added tax), and thereafter, on November 2, 2014, the construction cost of the Intervenor increased to KRW 685,30,000 (excluding value-added tax).
(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)
Although the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on November 13, 2014, only KRW 220,000,000, totaling KRW 72,490,000 on October 22, 2014, and KRW 147,510,000 on October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff through Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Asset Trust”).
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company
A. The plaintiff asserts that since the contract of this case was concluded with the defendant company as the contractor, the defendant company is obligated to pay the contract of this case.
B. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice with the supply price of 200,000,000 won as of October 18, 2014, and the supply price of 100,000,000 won as of November 27, 2014 as of October 18, 2014, and the fact that the Plaintiff had contact with the defendant company during the process of executing the instant construction after entering into the instant contract.
C. However, evidence No. 1 and No. 9 are respectively.