beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 19, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., interested Construction Co., Ltd., and with the joint contractors of construction sections 15 construction sections for the Nakdong River project consisting of Samdong River Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”). On May 19, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with respect to landscaping planting in the said construction section C and the construction of facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. From May 201, the Plaintiff was supplied with trees necessary for landscaping in the instant construction site by E Co., Ltd. with the Defendant’s husband D as the representative director. However, on October 21, 201, the Plaintiff issued two promissory notes with face value of KRW 60 million (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) and delivered them to the Defendant, and paid all the amount of the said notes on February 5, 2012.
C. Until March 2012, D, the Defendant’s husband, planted trees at the construction site of this case, and at the time, the flag rate of the landscaping construction was 80-90%.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 3 (including branch numbers, if any), witness F, G's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. On September 201, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant on the terms that the Defendant would supply shot trees and sloping trees to KRW 120 million at the construction site of the instant case (hereinafter “instant supply contract”), and accordingly, deliver the Promissory Notes to the Defendant as advance payment, and thereafter, pay all the amount of the Promissory Notes.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not supply trees at all at the construction site of this case.
The defendant did not supply trees to the construction site of this case for about two years, and eventually, the defendant's obligation to supply trees according to the supply contract of this case to the plaintiff has reached the actual impossibility.