beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The assertion;
A. On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant for the payment of KRW 5 million for the installation of a building on the ground of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul and completed the construction work around March 20, 2018. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the Plaintiff, which is KRW 1.5 million.
B. The Defendant, not the Plaintiff, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, who is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and D did not complete the construction work properly, so there is no obligation to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff.
2. As to who is a party to a contract in cases where an actor who executes a judgment contract was engaged in a juristic act in the name of another person, the parties to the contract shall first determine the offender or the nominal person as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the actor, if the actor and the other party agree with each other; and if the other party fail to agree with each other, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and details of the contract, if there is any difference between the actor and the nominal person, the parties
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44059, Dec. 12, 2003). In full view of the description of evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is recognized as having stated the name of D, i.e., “contractor” in the facility project contract.
However, according to the defendant's assertion, the defendant confirmed the business registration certificate under the name of D and entered into a contract with a facility business operator for the conclusion of a contract for construction work with a person with professional technology. According to the statements in subparagraph 2-1, 2, and 3 of subparagraph B, the defendant transferred the amount of KRW 1 million with D's account on September 22, 2017, KRW 10 million on November 3, 2007, KRW 15 million on December 13, 2017, and KRW 3.5 million on December 13, 2017, to the facility cost. In light of these circumstances, the defendant submitted by the plaintiff.