beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. Plaintiff 1) On October 20, 201, the Defendant: (a) on October 20, 201, the land (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) the wife population D (hereinafter “instant land”).
3) As to the ground housing (hereinafter “instant housing”)
The contract amount was set at KRW 310,000,000 for the new construction work, and at the time, the contract amount was set at KRW 310,000,000,000, and the contract amount written between the defendant and C is set at KRW 1-1 and KRW 4 (attached document; hereinafter “instant contract amount”).
(2) After the completion of the foregoing house, the Defendant did not pay the construction cost to C. 2) The Plaintiff received the payment from C on June 27, 2016, and C notified the Defendant of the above transfer on June 27, 2016, and the notification reached the Defendant on June 28, 2016. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the acquisition price of KRW 50 million and the delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant 1) did not conclude a contract for construction work with C as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the instant contract for construction work submitted by the Plaintiff was forged. The instant housing is the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) that received a contract for construction work from the Defendant.
(2) Even if the Defendant concluded a contract for construction work with C, as alleged by C, even if the contract was concluded between C and the Plaintiff, the claim for the construction work was three years, and the due date was on December 4, 2012, which was seven days after the completion of the construction work. Thus, the extinctive prescription had already expired in July 2016, when the Plaintiff acquired it.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. There is a contract agreement in this case that is directly admitted as a direct evidence to the existence of the claim for construction cost that the Plaintiff received as a result of the determination on the authenticity of the contract in this case, and the Defendant is the said contract agreement.