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. The facts of recognition are either a dispute between the parties, or a comprehensive statement of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence No. 1 and No. 2, is recognized as having been given to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2012, when the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdongdong 2 was awarded a contract for the construction of a new apartment on November 22, 201 by Defendant Choyang-dong 2, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, for the construction of a new apartment on the ground of 280-31, and the fact that he subcontracted the construction of a new apartment on March 22, 2012 to the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff should close the wall surface of the above apartment floor on his own in accordance with the design drawing and specifications, but in order for the plaintiff's new apartment building to close it as cement, the plaintiff's new apartment building should remove the wall surface of the first floor and reconstruct it as a substitute stone. The defendants agreed to order the plaintiff to remove the wall surface of the first floor and reconstruct it as an substitute stone, and the price for the additional construction will be settled later. The plaintiff executed the above additional construction and settled the construction price at KRW 1,013,469,90 after the completion of the construction.
Ultimately, the Defendants are obligated to pay the above additional construction cost, and the Defendant Union is obligated to pay the above additional construction cost even according to the Plaintiff’s direct payment request pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, since Defendant New and New Co-Defendant 1, the principal contractor, did not pay two or more installments of the subcontract price to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, it is claimed that the Defendants shall pay 20,100,000 won and damages for delay as part of each of them.
B. On December 21, 2013, the Defendant Cooperative stated that the Plaintiff did not claim construction cost from the Defendant Cooperative in its confirmation document that it requested the Defendant Cooperative to verify the above additional construction cost.