beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff (corporate registration number D) is a corporation established for the purpose of construction business on February 8, 2001 and its head office is located in the city of strike. The E corporation (corporate registration number F; hereinafter referred to as "non-party corporation") whose audit and inspection is conducted by the defendant B is an E corporation established for the purpose of construction business, etc. on April 26, 2004 and its head office is located in the Guri-si. G is a high school of the defendant B, and the defendants are the married couple.
B. Around October 201, G found the office located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul Company that Defendant B, who is an ancient Dong-dong, and concluded an agreement with Defendant B on the same content as that of Defendant B, stating that “I would allocate the profits accrued after settling the accounts in the future at a certain rate if the Defendant B bears the initial funds with respect to the construction awarded in the name of the non-party company in the name of the non-party company.”
C. Since then, G had to bear part of the office rent, vehicle installments, etc. of the non-party company, and had been working in the office of the non-party company while entering the name of the non-party company and having been aware of the construction work to be ordered to repair the factory expansion work of the Es.S. company (hereinafter “instant construction”). On February 2012, G decided that the instant construction work could not be ordered under the name of the non-party company due to the circumstances of the non-party company (including value-added tax, etc.). Since the bank account was seized, G was unable to receive the instant construction work under the name of the non-party company due to the circumstance of the non-party company (value-added tax, etc.). The Plaintiff, who was the director of the non-party company known to this business relationship, sought H as at the
The Plaintiff accepted the proposal as above and changed the trade name from the previous “I” to the “A” as of March 19, 2012, and the instant construction work between the EsBS Co., Ltd. on April 18, 2012.