beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. On June 2016, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 29.5 million, excluding the fixed-term construction cost of KRW 22.5 million, out of the construction cost of the instant new construction work, as the Plaintiff received KRW 52 million from the Defendant’s field agent F for the instant new construction work (hereinafter “instant new construction work”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 29.5 million, excluding the fixed-term construction cost of the instant new construction work (i.e., the total construction cost of KRW 52 million - the fixed-term construction cost of KRW 22.5 million) and the delay damages therefrom.
B. (1) According to the following facts: (a) whether the Defendant lent the name to F; (b) whether the Defendant’s representative director G and F had the Defendant newly built the instant construction work from the Defendant from April 2016 to March 24, 2017; (c) the Defendant and the Defendant’s representative director G and F had the Defendant use the Defendant’s name as a license fee for the construction work; and (d) the fact that the instant construction work was executed by using the Defendant’s name as a new construction work from March 29, 2018 to March 24, 2017, which became final and conclusive by having the Defendant’s representative director (hereinafter “G”) use the Defendant’s name as a license fee for the construction work; and (e) the fact that the instant construction work was executed by using the Defendant’s name as a new construction work.”
Furthermore, as recognized by the testimony of F of the witness of the first instance court and the purport of the entire pleadings, F is present as a witness at the first instance court on November 23, 2017, and F is the contractor of the new construction in this case, and F is not holding a comprehensive construction company license, and thus, the new construction in this case is conducted under the name of the Defendant.