beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant did not pay the construction cost of KRW 5 million, even though the Plaintiff completed the construction by being awarded a contract with the Defendant for the Doudio-gu Office Building (hereinafter “instant building”) located at the back of the Doudio-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”).
2. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the instant construction from the Defendant, the Defendant awarded a contract for the instant construction to a Seongdong Complex Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ssung Complex Construction”), the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, who is the owner of the instant construction from the occupant of the instant building to whom the claim for the new construction of the instant building was made regarding the construction of the instant building from the lessee of the instant building at the back convenience of the instant building, promised to undertake the instant construction to the occupant of the instant building. The Defendant shall pay for the new construction of the instant building on behalf of the Defendant the wages and vehicle damage expenses, etc. of sexual hearts, and instead, the Defendant paid for the instant construction of the instant building on behalf of the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, KRW 5 million for the new construction of the instant building, and on behalf of the Defendant, it is found that the Defendant paid KRW 37,500,000 for the Defendant’s testimony from July 2, 2012 to November 2, 2017.
B. The above facts are true that the Plaintiff also performed the instant construction at the request of sexual intercourse. However, if the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was also responsible for the construction work at the site of the request of the construction work, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the instant construction work from sexual intercourses, not the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised that the Defendant is the contractor of the instant construction work is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.