beta
Text
1. Defendant Dou Construction Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52,904,700 and its full payment from December 5, 2013.
Reasons
1. The following facts are based on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff, Defendant A, Defendant A (Appointed Party) (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not dispute with each other; (b) evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 3, 3, 1, 2-2, 1, 13, and 13; or (c) evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 3, 3-3, 1, 1, and 13, respectively.
On August 15, 2012, Defendant (Appointed Party), Appointed Party B, and C (hereinafter “Defendant (Appointed Party”) combined both Defendant (Appointed Party), Appointed Party B, and C, and agreed that the construction period will be KRW 2,047,50,000 on August 15, 2012, when the construction work was entrusted to the Defendant on August 15, 2012 by jointly using the trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
B. On September 21, 2012, the Defendant, a corporation established for the purpose of construction business, etc., agreed to entrust the Plaintiff with the part of the earth construction business during the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant earth construction project”) and the construction period from August 17, 2012 to October 30 of the same year, while the construction cost was KRW 245 million.
C. The Defendant filed a claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party) for construction cost as Seoul East Eastern District Court 2013Gahap14451 in relation to the instant construction contract, but the said court rendered a judgment on August 22, 2014 that “the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed,” and determined that there was no remainder if the Defendant deducts the Defendant from the Defendant’s claim for payment of the price of the instant construction contract the direct payment amount of KRW 52,904,700 against the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to determine the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant at KRW 52,904,700 as to the land of this case on July 3, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute with each other, or that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not comprehensively take account of each of the items in Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 10.