beta
Text
1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff added at the trial.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with C to the effect that it was awarded a contract for a new construction work on the land D (hereinafter “C land”) at Seosan City, and newly constructed the above housing pursuant to the said contract, and that the Defendant newly constructed a new house on the ground of the Defendant’s land as the owner of land E, a land adjacent to C land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”), which is the owner of land adjacent to C (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”), and he he accumulated a higher tin scale after putting the boundary of the land C and the Defendant into a new house on the ground of the Defendant’s land. The Plaintiff opened a part of the floor of the land C-owned land, installed a new house on the ground of land, installed a drainage channel, and requested the construction work to restore the said house to its original state (hereinafter
B. A summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The Defendant requested the instant construction work to the Plaintiff C, and the construction cost was to be borne by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff concluded a contract on the instant construction work with the Defendant, and received advance payment of KRW 5,000,000, which is a part of the construction cost, from the Defendant, and completed the instant construction work at the Defendant’s request. However, since the construction cost for the said construction is a total of KRW 12,670,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant requested the instant construction work to the Plaintiff, and then set the construction cost to KRW 5,00,000,000 to the F, and there was no fact between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to conclude a contract on the instant construction work.
In fact, the execution of the above construction is not F but F. The payment of the construction cost of KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s account under the name of F was made to the account designated by F without knowledge of F’s name.
Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay the construction cost to the plaintiff.
C. Determination 1: the Plaintiff and the Defendant were examined.