beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion was completed by being supplied with landscaped construction work of approximately 300 square meters on August 8, 2005 by the defendant, and the construction cost was KRW 97,760,000. The defendant paid only KRW 6,00,000 as part of the down payment.
However, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff owns the tax agency fee of KRW 21,25,00 (i.e., KRW 14,970,000 from 205 to 2009, KRW 1,485,000 for the fee of KRW 2010 for the fee of KRW 2013, KRW 3,000,000 for the fee of KRW 2014 for the fee of KRW 1,805,00 for the fee of KRW 2014 for the tax agency). As such, if the balance of the construction cost and the tax agency fee of KRW 70,505,00 for the said landscaping work are offset against the amount on an equal basis, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 70,505,00 for the tax agency fee of KRW 97,760,00 for the remaining construction cost of KRW 6,000 for - KRW 21,25,00
2. The Defendant awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for KRW 6,00,000 to the Plaintiff and denied the contract for landscaping works as alleged by the Plaintiff, if the payment was made in full.
In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, 4, 5 and No. 1, it seems that the Plaintiff was planted not only on land B owned by the Defendant but also on trees.
① However, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the landscaping construction works of the Plaintiff’s assertion. ② According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the landscaping construction works completed in July 7, 2015, there was no evidence from the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost until the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit (in spite of the Defendant’s payment of the tax agency fee to the Plaintiff, there was no document expressing the Plaintiff’s intent to offset it against the claim for the construction cost). ③ The Defendant did not deny the Plaintiff’s planting of trees. However, the Plaintiff planted trees by having the Plaintiff receive compensation from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.