beta
Text
1. Defendant B: C Co., Ltd. (the representative director: D and the location of its head office: Sungnam-si E and 821);
A. Attached Form 2.
Reasons
1. The following facts are found to have been led by the above defendant pursuant to Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul. It is acknowledged that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the remaining defendants, or that there is no evidence between the parties, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 (including the numbers of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), evidence Nos. 1, 5, 5, 5, 13 of Eul, 1, 2, 4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 42 of Eul, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5
A. A. (1) A around September 19, 2000, the Plaintiff’s construction price, etc. for C was merged into the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government P and Q each land ( October 21, 2004) of Nam-gu P and Q around September 19, 200.
hereinafter referred to as “the instant officetel site”
(1) After acquiring ownership, the main complex building of the fourth and 11th floor above the above ground (hereinafter referred to as “the instant officetel”).
A) Around November 8, 2000, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with respect to the instant officetel construction works. Around June 2002, the construction works were suspended due to the outlines of sub-contractors, etc. on which the construction works were in progress. Around August 21, 2002, the said construction contract was rescinded (at the time, the instant officetel was at least 82% of the construction works’ progress rate).
(2) After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for the payment of the construction cost, and the first instance court (Seoul Central District Court 2006Kahap4606) dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, but the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2007Na48617) partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim, and the appellate court (Supreme Court 2008Da29246) reversed it on the ground that there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding the calculation of the construction cost for the final appeal (Supreme Court 2008Da29246). After remanding the lawsuit, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2008Na8933) has already paid the Plaintiff 6.7 billion won of the construction cost.