1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded an entrustment contract for construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal services (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant Union conducting a housing redevelopment business in Zone IV of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1035-1, Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and sought payment of KRW 226,854,00,000, out of KRW 365,387,53,00 from January 2013 to June 201 of the same year, and transported and disposes of construction waste in accordance with the instant contract. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant sought payment of KRW 138,53,00,000, out of the amount of waste disposal services rendered by the Defendant.

(A) The Defendant concluded a contract for construction of an apartment building under the above redevelopment project with the non-party Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Modern Construction”), which is the contractor, for the construction of a new apartment building under the above redevelopment project. Hyundai Construction subcontracted the removal construction among the new construction works, to the non-party Gyeonggi Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “KD environment”). The sports environment re-entrusted the construction of the above removal construction with the transportation and disposal of the wastes to the non-party 1 corporation for the construction of bonded distribution (hereinafter referred to as the “construction of bonded distribution”), and the construction of bonded distribution re-entrusted part of the above transportation and disposal work to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant did not enter into a waste disposal service contract with the Plaintiff, and the contract for construction waste collection and transportation as alleged by the Plaintiff is null and void due to a false agreement concluded with the Plaintiff on convenience prepared by the Gu office to report waste disposal.

Judgment

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant actually entered into a waste treatment service contract, such as A’s certificate No. 1 contract, and thus, is examined.

Basic Facts

Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2 shall be comprehensively taken into account the purport of the whole pleadings.