beta
Text
1. Defendant B:
A. From July 16, 2015 to April 2016, 2016, KRW 15,000 to Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and its related thereto.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 26, 2015, the comprehensive development of the Defendant Mine Co., Ltd. subcontracted the removal of the building in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju to Defendant B the construction cost of KRW 70,000,000 (Supplementary Map).
B. Upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff and the designated parties leased construction machinery at the site of the aforementioned removal construction work. From June 3, 2015 to July 15, 2015, Plaintiff A leased a route of rent of KRW 15,000,000, and from June 2, 2015 to July 15, 2015, the designated parties C leased a basin of KRW 11,350,000 for rent from June 2, 2015 to July 13, 2015 (the rent of KRW 9,450,000,000,000 for rent of KRW 15,145,00 from June 2, 2015 to July 13, 2015 (the rent of KRW 9,450,000,000 for the tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff to KRW 15,50,005,00 for value-added tax from June 29, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the fact of claim recognition for the comprehensive development of Defendant Mine Co., Ltd., the parties to a construction machinery lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the designated parties are Defendant B, so the comprehensive development of Defendant Mine Co., Ltd. is not obligated to pay construction machinery rent to the Plaintiff and the
Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Mining Comprehensive Development agreed to pay the above construction machinery rent directly to the Plaintiff and the designated parties, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to deem that there exists a right to demand direct payment under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.
The plaintiff asserts that since the contract for the removal work between the defendants is null and void because the defendant B is not entitled to the removal work, the comprehensive development of the defendant mine should pay the rent directly. However, this part of the claim is without merit since it does not have the legal effect of the contract.
3. According to the fact of recognition of the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B, as well as the Plaintiff’s rent of KRW 15,00,000,00, and its related thereto, from July 16, 2015 to April 20, 2016.