beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant promised to subcontract the instant subcontracted construction work to the Plaintiff among the new construction works of multi-family housing in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant subcontracted construction”), and ordered the Plaintiff to take over the construction site, install temporary fences, conduct the watch frame work, and conduct the stairs shot board work (hereinafter “instant work”).
The plaintiff performed construction work accordingly, but the defendant ordered a third party to the subcontract of this case, unlike the original promise.
Therefore, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,553,000 for the initial construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff as damages. However, the Defendant’s claim was reduced to seek payment of KRW 7,053,00,000 for the remainder after deducting KRW 3,50,000 that the Defendant directly paid to B who performed the temporary fence construction work at the trial.
In addition, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the estimated cost of KRW 14,053,000,000 for the total of KRW 14,053,00, and damages for delay incurred by the Plaintiff to accept the above reinforced concrete construction.
B. The fact that the Plaintiff conducted the instant work at the site of the said new construction project for multi-family housing is not disputed between the parties.
However, in full view of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff engaged in the instant work on the premise that the Plaintiff entered into the instant subcontract construction contract from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
① The Plaintiff asserts that the instant work was conducted in advance on the premise that the Defendant entered into the instant subcontract contract.
However, it is alleged by the plaintiff.