beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. From August 1, 2015 to December 28, 2015, at the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds at the construction site of the construction site of the building B (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of door-si (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff failed to receive the remainder of KRW 50,100,000, excluding the amount of KRW 31,174,000, out of KRW 81,274,000, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant leased the license of the Defendant Co., Ltd. to enter into a contract on the new construction of the instant building with D, and the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed upon entering into a contract on the supply of ready-mixed with D, and thus, the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, not the Defendant.
2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant owned the building owner of the building of this case as the owner of the building of this case, and the fact that the plaintiff supplied ready-mixed at the site of the construction of the building of this case does not conflict between the parties, but further, according to the records as to the fact that the defendant concluded a contract for the supply of ready-mixed with the plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff entered the defendant as a customer of the supply of ready-mixed with the plaintiff into the sales supervisor of this case, but it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1 of Eul, the Plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint with the head of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office on April 2017, on the ground that "the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed at the request of D, and was not paid KRW 50,100,000 to the site of the new construction of the instant building. This is a deception of the Plaintiff under the absence of the intent to pay the price for the goods, and the Defendant was not included in the Defendant’s complaint against the Plaintiff."