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 liable to pay the above construction price and delay damages to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant for the interior work of “C” main office located in the window D of Changwon-si, thereby doing construction work equivalent to KRW 940,500 from September 9, 2009 to October 9, 2009.
In light of the above argument, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7-2, and 3 as shown in the above argument, and testimony of witness E is difficult to believe, and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff contracted for the above construction from the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obliged to pay the said construction cost and the damages for delay, as the interior works of the cafeteria “F” restaurant located in the window G of Changwon-si were awarded a contract from October 25, 2010 to construction works equivalent to KRW 6,845,00 during the middle of the day from October 25, 2010.
On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 7-2 and 3, which seems to conform to the above argument, are hard to believe, and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff contracted the above construction work from the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the said construction cost and the damages for delay, as the interior works of the cafeteria located in the H “H” restaurant located in the window of Changwon-si were awarded a contract from July 13, 2012 to construction works equivalent to KRW 5,231,300 during the middle of the day from July 13, 2012.
However, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7-2 and 3, as shown in the above argument, and testimony of witness E is difficult to believe, and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff contracted the above construction from the defendant.