beta
Text
The defendant's 44,926,361 won and 120,90,876 won and each of them to the plaintiff Eul Co., Ltd.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Facts of recognition 1) In the case of Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), the “Co.” is omitted.
On March 28, 2018, based on the executory order for payment in the Incheon District Court 2018 tea1145 case, the construction works of 80 households for multi-households on the ground (4,926,361 won in the claimed amount) located outside Seopo-si of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province against D, Seopo-si, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (4,926,361 won in the claimed amount) 80 households for multi-households on the ground (10th floor on the ground, 4th floor on the ground,
(2) On April 22, 2018, upon receipt of the order of seizure and collection as to the claim for the construction cost under the foregoing order, the above order was served on the Defendant on April 19, 2018 (Seoul District Court Decision 2018TTTTTT20,90,876). On April 4, 2018, Plaintiff B, based on the authentic copy of the order of payment with executory power over the construction cost case 2018TT20,90,876, upon receipt of the order of seizure and collection as to the claim for the construction cost of this case against D’s Defendant, the above order was served on the Defendant on April 25, 2018 (Seoul District Court Decision 2018TTTT8292), the Defendant and D submitted to the Defendant for settlement of the contract amount of this case to the Defendant on June 22, 2017, the contractor, the contractor’s commencement date, and the completion date of the construction contract of this case.
3) Claims for the construction price of this case against D’s Defendant, which have been settled pursuant to the instant construction contract, are equivalent to KRW 1,700,000 (the Defendant: (a) confessioned on November 16, 2018 at the first date for pleading; (b) revoked the confession from the preparatory document dated April 24, 2019, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake; and (c) revocation of the confession is void.
(ii) [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 7, and Eul evidence 7 (if any).