beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 29, 201, the Defendant entered into a contract on the construction cost of non-permanent development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-permanent development”) and A (hereinafter “the instant construction project”) with respect to construction cost of KRW 774,15,630, Jun. 30, 2011; the date of commencement; the date of completion; November 30, 201; and the aforementioned construction contract was amended on October 21, 201 and Nov. 28, 201 on two occasions for additional construction works, such as biochemical laboratories. The construction cost increased and became KRW 868,406,000.
B. On September 7, 2011, non-permanent development subcontracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff on August 17, 201, with the construction cost of KRW 108,900,000,00 for tin construction, trawing construction, wooding construction, swimming pool construction, and other construction works, as of August 17, 201, the date of commencement, November 20, 201, and the date of completion (hereinafter “instant subcontract”), and the Plaintiff performed the said construction project subcontracted from September 17, 201 to November 28, 2011.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the instant construction project with the non-fashion development. However, separate from this, the Plaintiff entered into an oral contract for the instant toilet construction project at KRW 118,770,000 for construction cost, and the Plaintiff completed the said toilet construction project. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 94,250,370 for the said construction cost to the Plaintiff.
B. According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 5, 14, and evidence Nos. 22-1 through 35, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff prepared a written estimate of the toilet construction in this case, and that the Plaintiff performed the toilet construction in this case, and that “the Plaintiff, who is an employee of the Defendant, is deemed to have executed the toilet construction in this case,” but the above facts alone are sufficient to support the Plaintiff and the Defendant.