beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 17, and Eul evidence No. 5:
On December 19, 2005, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a joint agreement with EM reconstruction association (hereinafter “the reconstruction association of this case”) with the said association as a site, and D newly constructed a main complex building with the third and third underground floors above the above site of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, with the size of 330.09 square meters and F 626 square meters above the size of 330.09 square meters and 16 households below the above site, and supplied the members of the association with the remaining parts to cover the construction expenses, etc.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant reconstruction construction” and the “instant main complex building” are the same as the construction of the instant main complex building.
D A. On August 21, 2006, when the construction of the above building was contracted to the Dai Han Construction Co., Ltd., and the contract for the construction was rescinded on the grounds of the nonperformance of the above company's obligation. On February 21, 2008, when the construction was changed to the Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd., the construction contract was again rescinded under the condition that the construction was done from 4 to
C. After that, D agreed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to complete the instant reconstruction construction, and D agreed to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff. However, due to the issue of construction business license, D agreed to externally the name of the contractor as the existence of Malaysia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EN”), and entered into a construction contract again on January 20, 2010 with the name of the contractor as its existence.
The Plaintiff subsequently resumed the instant reconstruction project and completed the construction process by up to 95%. However, around May 2012, disputes arising between the reconstruction association, D, and the Plaintiff have occurred and the subcontractor of the instant reconstruction project from September 28, 2012.