beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 23,776,500 won to the plaintiff, since he lent the cateral period to the construction site of the Daegu-gu Yoldong Apartment Complex (hereinafter "the construction of this case"), Daegu-gu 486, Taedong-gu, Daegu-si, Daegu-si, Daegu-si (hereinafter "the construction of this case"), which was executed by the defendant under a contract with Handong-si Co., Ltd.
As to this, the Defendant, while performing the construction of the land in the instant case, contracted the construction of the Korea-China Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-China Industrial Development”), to transport residues and the next business. The Plaintiff leased the Korea-China Industrial Development. However, upon the request for the development of the Korea-China Industrial Development, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request, as it directly paid some of the equipment cost to the Plaintiff.
2. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, evidence Nos. 4, and 6-1, and 2, respectively, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 8,28,200 on August 31, 2014, and KRW 8,283,00 on September 30, 2014, and KRW 7,909,00 on November 1, 2014, and received the price. In addition, the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice of KRW 13,72,00 on November 30, 2014, KRW 8,580,00 on December 31, 2014, KRW 250 on December 12, 2014, KRW 205, KRW 7,00 on May 27, 2014, respectively.
However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statement No. 3, the Defendant: (a) contracted to the Korea Industrial Development on July 31, 2014 for the transportation of residues and the following business during the instant construction period from August 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015; (b) the Plaintiff was used for the transportation of residues and on-board work; and (c) the Plaintiff was also requested by B to rent equipment; (d) the Plaintiff did not prepare a disposal document, such as a written contract, etc., between the Defendant and the Defendant; and (e) the Plaintiff leased the so-called “the instant construction site.”