beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the same is cited in accordance with the main sentence
However, the following judgments are added to the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
The defendant asserts that since the party to the goods supply contract of this case is not the defendant but D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D"), the defendant paid the subcontract price in full to D, the plaintiff cannot be liable for any responsibility to the defendant.
However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see the defendant as a party to the contract in light of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 1 to 4, and some testimony of witness E of the party at the trial.
① On February 13, 2017, Defendant and F Co., Ltd. subcontracted reinforced concrete construction works among the construction works of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western G apartment.
However, since March 2017, D could not work properly, the defendant carried out almost direct work since that time, and the construction price for D's subcontractors was paid directly by receiving written consent from D.
② On October 2017, the Defendant’s site director E, who is likely to cause disruptions to the supply of material due to satisfying material, requested the Plaintiff to contact with the Plaintiff.
At the time, E was all designated for the quantity, size, and delivery date, and D did not intervene in all.
③ The Plaintiff supplied 60 short heat 60 copies on October 12, 2017, and 230 short heat 25 October 2017 to the said construction site. The Plaintiff received and examined this and received a request from the Plaintiff is all the Defendant’s employees.
④ In relation to 60 short heat materials supplied by the Plaintiff on October 12, 2017 (price 2,871,000), the Defendant treated it as being directly supplied by the Plaintiff. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,579,050 to the Plaintiff.
⑤ With respect to 230 short heat (price 11,005,50) supplied by the Plaintiff on October 25, 2017, E is the larger amount.