beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a redevelopment association that obtained approval for the establishment of a partnership from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 15, 2015 to implement a housing redevelopment project for B 35,827 square meters in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant housing redevelopment project”).
B. On June 23, 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction waste disposal services with Taesung Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Taisung”), and entered into a modified contract on July 22, 2013 with the content that the construction cost shall be increased to KRW 3,054,429,000.
However, the above service contract was terminated on November 28, 2014 due to the aggravation of the financial resources, such as the provisional attachment of the claim for the construction cost of Taesung, and the defendant terminated the above service contract on the grounds of the default of Taesung.
C. On the other hand, on October 29, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction waste disposal services (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Plaintiff and the construction cost of KRW 1,914,429,00 (the total construction cost of KRW 3,054,429,000 after deducting KRW 1,140,000,000 already paid from the total construction cost of KRW 3,054,429,00), and the remainder of the terms and conditions of the contract were the same as the service contract with Tae Gyeong-cenc, and entered into a contract for construction waste disposal services (hereinafter “additional service contract”). On August 7, 2015, the instant service contract to pay the construction cost of KRW 630,000,000,000 in addition to the services such as tree disposal, road disposal, etc. under the instant service contract.
After that, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant service contract and the instant additional service contract and the waste disposal work, and the Defendant from August 31, 2015 to the same year.
9. By November, 199, the Plaintiff urged the Plaintiff to perform the above tasks.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff did not perform the duty of removal and waste disposal, and the defendant did not accept the construction delay and waste removal plan to the plaintiff on September 16, 2015.