Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) jointly received D Construction Works ordered at the common market price (hereinafter “instant Construction Works”) and the Defendant and C entered into a subcontract with E (E) on April 29, 2016 for reinforced concrete and steel structure construction works of the instant Construction.
B. On September 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for equipment lease of KRW 18,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the mid-term season to be used at the construction site of this case, which is a person who leases equipment such as a mid-term season.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.
From June 2017, the Defendant and C received a written consent to the payment for completed portion from E, and if E consents to the direct payment for completed portion at the request of the payment for completed portion, the Defendant and C paid the progress payment to the sewage-based enterprise accordingly.
Despite the direct payment for completed portion, as E does not proceed smoothly, the defendant notified the termination of the contract to E on May 2018, and the defendant and C performed the remaining construction, and E is currently in the process of corporate rehabilitation procedures.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 11, 13, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that when entering into the instant lease agreement, he was notified by E that the user fee for equipment would be paid directly by the Defendant, and thereafter, he was paid KRW 47,100,000 on three occasions by the Defendant.
Since at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and E agreed to pay the equipment rent directly to the Plaintiff, it would have been paid directly as above.
From September 16, 2017 to May 22, 2018, usage fees, etc. for equipment generated by leasing equipment at the construction site of this case were KRW 167,429,677, and the Defendant paid only KRW 47,100,00 among them, and the Defendant paid only KRW 47,100,000 to the Plaintiff.