beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 64,950,00 and the Defendants from August 1, 2014 to May 25, 2016.
Reasons
1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A, B, and C
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Grounds: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D
A. On April 2014, Plaintiff: (a) received only KRW 99,550,00 from the Defendants for the payment of the construction price of KRW 136,650,00 (not later than June 28, 2014) and received KRW 136,650,00 (not later than June 28, 2014), and completed each construction around June 2014; and (b) the Defendants received only KRW 72,00,000 from the Defendants for the payment of the construction price of KRW 136,650,00 ( KRW 52,000,000,000) and did not receive the remainder of KRW 64,950,000 from the Defendants.
Defendant D asserts that each of the contracts for interior works (Evidence A No. 2-1 and 2) is written as the payment for the construction cost, and that Defendant C signed on behalf of Defendant D on behalf of Defendant D, Defendant D is jointly and severally liable to pay the payment for the construction cost of KRW 64,950,000 and the delayed payment for such payment with the remaining Defendants in accordance with the payment agreement for the construction cost.
B) Defendant D asserts that each of the instant contracts for interior works (Evidence A No. 2-1, 2-2) did not have signed as the payer of the construction cost. 2) Even if a disposal document is a disposal document, if it is proved that the document was forged and its authenticity is not recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intention in accordance with the contents of the document cannot be recognized.
As to the instant case, Defendant D agreed to pay the construction cost in accordance with each of the instant medical records, and the authenticity of No. 2-1 and No. 2, which is a disposal document, is disputed with the Plaintiff’s assertion, and Defendant C, not the Defendant D, puts his signature on the name of Defendant D, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant C, not the Defendant D, in the name of Defendant D. The written evidence No. 4 submitted by the Plaintiff, alone, is against Defendant C.