beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence No. 6; (c) evidence No. 1; and (d) witness evidence No. D’s testimony.
The 5th floor above the 1st floor underground located in Seocho-gu, Changwon-si E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) is jointly owned by Defendant C and F, with 1/2 shares. The 1st floor above the above building is used as a bath, the 3th floor above the 3th floor and the 5th floor above the above building as a house.
B. On January 2013, the Plaintiff completed the installation works of the third and fourth boilers and the first and second bathing bath removal works of the instant building. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 13 million in total as construction cost from Defendant C and his/her mother, etc.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination were made by the Defendants each contract for boiler installation works with KRW 15 million, and bathing removal works with KRW 30 million. The Plaintiff asserted that the total cost of the cost of the alteration of urban gas facilities plus KRW 6.4 million, including the cost of the alteration of urban gas facilities and the cost of the concrete cutting work with KRW 4 million, and the cost of the construction cost plus KRW 51.4 million (= KRW 15 million). The Plaintiff claimed that the payment of KRW 38.4 million, excluding the fixed cost of KRW 13 million, out of the total cost of the construction cost (= KRW 15 million and KRW 6.4 million).
However, as alleged by the plaintiff, the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 5 and 8, and witness D testimony alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff contracted the boiler work from the defendants for the price of KRW 15 million and the price of the bathing removal work for the bathing bath removal work, and that there was an additional construction cost equivalent to KRW 6.4 million in the construction process, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.