beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff runs the construction business, etc. with the trade name “D;” (b) from the Defendant who runs the interior construction business with the trade name “E; (c) F painting work equivalent to KRW 1,174,800; (d) around June 2014; (c) G painting work equivalent to KRW 13,321,000; (d) around August 2014; (d) H painting work equivalent to KRW 9,300,50; and (e) from around October 2014; and (d) from around December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a subcontract for construction work equivalent to KRW 36,565,50 in total amount; and (e) from around December 30, 201, the Plaintiff paid a considerable amount of KRW 300,000,000,000.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 33,865,850 (=36,565,850 won-3,000,000) and the total of KRW 300,000,000, which is equivalent to the value-added tax amount of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff, and the delay damages therefrom.
2. The board is not sufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s respective subcontracting of the F, G, H, and I’s respective painting from the Defendant, even if comprehensively considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each numbered evidence attached), namely, ① the defendant registers as an individual entrepreneur around April 201, while taking office as the representative director of J on March 2014, ② the plaintiff was aware of the defendant, who was a field manager at the construction site of Yongsansan National Defense at the construction site of the Ministry of National Defense around December 201 and who was his subordinate employee, at the request of the plaintiff on June 2014, K established J, and registered the defendant, who was the subordinate employee of the former workplace, as the representative director; ③ Ja and Dec. 2, 2013.