beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In the course of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the medical corporation was accepted by the medical corporation, the Defendant had a claim for repair and construction cost for interior and outside-of-land repair works and interior and interior-of-land repair works, and delegated the E Co., Ltd. to exercise the right of retention through the said corporation.
Accordingly, the plaintiff prepared an agreement with the representative director F of the defendant and E, and paid 40,000,000 won to the defendant. The above agreement is premised on the existence of the defendant's lien.
However, in Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Gahap1976, Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Gahap1976, the above lien was determined as non-existent, and the defendant asserted as if he did not perform the above construction work, and received the above money from the plaintiff. Since the above act of the defendant was received the above money without any ground from the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 40,000,000 and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
2. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 5,000,000,000 as the construction price, on May 27, 2014, on June 29, 2014, and on July 10, 2014.
In addition, even if the defendant did not exist, the claim for construction cost and the right of retention were claimed, and the above amount was paid by the plaintiff and the tort was committed.
As to whether the plaintiff was unjust enrichment or not, the evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 9-1, 2, and 14-5 were submitted as evidence. However, each written agreement (Evidence Nos. 3 and 7) is merely prepared between E and E, not the defendant, and E, and there is no indication in the same purport as the plaintiff's assertion in each of the above written agreements. In addition, the Daejeon District Court Decision No. 2014Gahap1976 case (Evidence No. 14-5) was also against the KOF and E corporation.