beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 2, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction work of KRW 440 million,00,000 with respect to the Multi-Family Housing Construction Work for the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, and attached the construction work price to the joint guarantor and joint guarantor. Since the Defendant unilaterally terminated the said contract and subsequently did not gain profits of KRW 66 million equivalent to the total construction cost, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.
2. Facts and determination
A. 1) On February 1, 2019, the Defendant transferred ownership of the area of 170 square meters in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon. The Defendant decided to newly construct multiple houses on the said site, and entered the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the content thereof. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to prepare a construction contract for a loan application for new construction of a house.
As of July 2, 2019, a written contract for construction work was drawn up with the defendant as the contractor, the contract price of KRW 370,000,000,000 for the plaintiff as the contractor. As of July 10, 2019, the contract for construction work was signed with the defendant's husband D as the contractor, the contract price of KRW 440,000,000 for the work price of the plaintiff as the contractor.
At the time, the detailed contents of the construction have not yet been determined.
3) On July 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant visited the E association as a business proprietor and the Defendant as a joint and several sureties, and the Plaintiff prepared a business agreement for facility loan as a joint and several sureties. The content of the above business agreement was to pay KRW 250 million in accordance with the fair rate. However, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the size and method of payment of loans on the job and decided to separately notify the Defendant of whether to execute the loan. 4) After that, the Plaintiff considered the size and method of payment of the loan, etc., and the Defendant did not perform the construction work on the part of the contractor.