beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 32,547,387 against the Defendants, jointly and severally, and from March 4, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Husband and wife Defendants are engaged in the sales and building business of building materials under the trade name of “D”.
B. Defendant C was awarded, on behalf of the Defendant B, a contract with the E, F, etc. (hereinafter “project owner”) for remodeling of two lots of ground buildings (Hriart) outside North-gu G at port and two lots of land (hereinafter “renovation construction”) at port on April 4, 2012.
C. Defendant B obtained permission for completion of the building on August 10, 2012, and delivered the building to the owner.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants asserted that the construction work for electricity and lighting was subcontracted to the Plaintiff in the amount of KRW 9,147,00 for the construction work cost (excluding value-added tax). The Plaintiff received KRW 62,00,000 from the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 40,861,70 for the remainder of the construction cost (= value-added tax + KRW 37,147,000 + Value-added tax + KRW 3,714,700) and the delay damages therefor. 2) Since the Defendants’ assertion that they subcontracted the construction work for electricity and lighting to the Plaintiff is Defendant B, Defendant C is not liable to pay the Plaintiff a debt under the subcontract.
Of the construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff, KRW 19,147,00,00 is the price for the lighting fixtures established by the Plaintiff at the request of the owner of the building, and Defendant B does not have the obligation to pay the price to the Plaintiff.
B. 1) Determination 1) The Plaintiff, the subcontractor of the instant construction, during the remodeling project, shall be the electricity and lighting work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
Although there is no dispute between the parties that subcontracted the construction of this case to the Plaintiff, there is a dispute as to whether the subcontractor is Defendant B and the Defendants.
The following circumstances, i.e., evidence and evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, and evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, are acknowledged as follows.