beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied services to the Defendant’s construction site (on the spot name: the field name, DBter, E hospital, F hospital, Gburology, HH, and I eight floors) from early 2014 to March 2015. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 37,557,000 from the Defendant.
2. Determination:
A. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 as well as the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of removing and arranging the job placement services with the trade name of “J”, and the Plaintiff is recognized to have provided services to the Defendant in relation to the F Hospital construction site from early 2014 to March 2015. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the service cost. However, each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied services to the Defendant in relation to the remainder of the construction site (on the spot name: the field name department, Durology department, E hospital, Gviterology department, H medical clinic, and I8 floors), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. Defendant’s defense 1) defenses that the statute of limitations expired for the Plaintiff’s claim for service payment related to the F Hospital construction site. The Plaintiff’s claim for service payment is apparent in the record that three years have lapsed pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and that the instant lawsuit was filed on April 16, 2018, after three years have elapsed since March 2015 at the latest, at the latest, from March 16, 2015. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for service payment was already extinguished before the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense is reasonable. 2) As to this, the Plaintiff’s defense was suspended by the Defendant’s approval of the above service payment claim to the Plaintiff after July 2015. Thus, the Defendant’s defense was re-appellanted to the effect that the said defense was groundless.
However, according to the statement No. 1 and witness K's testimony, the defendant's testimony to the plaintiff around March 2015.