beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that, at the request of the defendant who was awarded a contract for the construction of the Road Packing Works for the extreme-Inbound-Inbound Road (hereinafter “instant road construction”), the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 79,893,00 in total, KRW 49,584,150 in August 2013 and KRW 30,308,850 in total, as well as KRW 49,584,150 in total, and KRW 30,308,00 in September 2013.
As to this, the Defendant, from June 11, 2013 to April 26, 2014, subcontracted the land construction among the instant road construction, to Non-Party Port Construction Co., Ltd. with the construction cost of KRW 372,362,00, and the construction cost of KRW 372,362,00, and the Plaintiff supplied the necessary aggregate to the Round Construction, and did not deliver it to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the subcontract price to the Round Construction. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff the price of goods.
2. First of all, we examine whether there was a direct transactional relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the supply of fine aggregate, and there is a lack of proof to acknowledge this by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
Rather, according to the fact finding in Eul's evidence No. 2, if the court's response to the order to submit the tax information on E.T. written evidence reveals the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff filed an application for payment order on the same amount as the claim price of KRW 49,584,150 in August 2013 and KRW 30,308,850 in aggregate of KRW 30,308,850 in September 2013 and KRW 79,893,00 in aggregate of KRW 30,300 in this case's supply to the non-party Mala Construction Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff issued a tax invoice on the same amount to the same company. Thus, the plaintiff merely appears to have supplied aggregate under a contract with the non-party 1 and the defendant.
3. Conclusion