beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
3. The time when the action has been brought.
Reasons
1. In addition to the evidence submitted by the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant Company ordered the instant construction to the Plaintiff even after examining the evidence submitted by the court of first instance.
In light of the fact that it is insufficient to recognize that the construction of this case was subcontracted to the Plaintiff by being awarded a contract for the construction of a studio by D, N,O, and P, which are the owner of the building or the owner of the building, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the construction of this case was subcontracted to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The construction contract of this case was signed with D’s personal seal, the Plaintiff demanded D to pay the construction cost of this case, and prepared an authentic deed to the effect that D transferred the ownership of the land and the building owned by D and paid the construction cost to the Plaintiff, and materials to deem that the Plaintiff demanded the payment of the construction cost of this case to the Defendant Company before the filing of the lawsuit
Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is based on the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except for adding the following judgments with respect to the conjunctive claims asserted by the Plaintiff in the trial. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that D, the representative director of the Defendant Company, was negligent in deceiving the Defendant Company as if the other party to the instant contract was D, or neglecting to accurately explain whether the other party to the instant contract was a party to the instant contract. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 305,747,700 from the Defendant Company due to the intentional or negligent act committed by D, and suffered losses from D that amounting to the above amount.
The defendant company suffered the plaintiff due to the above illegal acts committed by D, the representative director.