beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, who served as the managing director of Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and filed an application with the said company for payment of wages, etc. with the Incheon District Court under 2017 tea3841. On July 12, 2017, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to pay “D, etc. jointly and severally, shall pay to the Plaintiff 49,492,450 won, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the payment order was served to the day of full payment.” The said court was finalized on July 29, 2017.
B. On April 10, 2016, between the Defendants and D, a construction contract was made between the Defendants and D with the content that D will undertake construction of accommodation interior interior interior works for KRW 1 billion among the F buildings newly constructed in Namyang-si, Nam-si, Gyeonggi-do. (hereinafter “instant interior construction contract”).
C. The Plaintiff received the order of seizure and collection as to the amount up to KRW 52,429,261 from among the claim for the construction cost for the interior works of F building, which D had against the Defendants by Seoul Eastern District Court 2017 tea3841, which was issued by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017TTTY 59729. The Plaintiff received the order of seizure and collection as to the amount up to KRW 52,429,261, and the original copy of the order of seizure and collection was served on December 14, 2017.
【In the absence of any dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff, based on the collection order and the seizure of the instant claim and the collection order, claimed against the Defendants, the debtor against D, the debtor, based on the collection order, the collection amount of KRW 52,429,261, and damages for delay.
B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the contract for the interior contract of this case was made by falsity for tax treatment, and that there was no obligation of the Defendants to pay the construction cost to D.
3. Determination
A. The instant interior contract (Evidence A No. 1) presented by the Plaintiff as the basis for the claim for construction price against the Defendants in the instant case.