beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 30, 2013, the Defendant entered into a remodeling construction contract with the Defendant with respect to the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-ground housing (ground and ground second floor; hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by the Defendant, with a contract amount of which is KRW 80,000,000. The said construction contract includes the installation of a scke and a scke for the total of five households of the instant housing (two households of the ground and the first floor, each of the second floor, and the second floor).
B. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling, manufacturing, and installing teas with the trade name “G” in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant, around December 9, 2013, determined and notified the Plaintiff of the color of the tea and the sckes to be installed on the second floor above the instant housing site in the instant G, and the Plaintiff installed the sckes and the sckes on the second floor above the instant housing site around December 17, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, part of the witness of the trial court H, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, on December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with the Defendant on the second floor of the instant housing site with the payment of KRW 2,136,000 as the price for the installation of a scam and a scam on the second floor of the instant housing site.
The following circumstances are as to whether the Defendant directly agreed to pay the above price to the Plaintiff, the above basic facts and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of Gap evidence No. 5-1, 5-2, and Eul evidence No. 4, part of Gap evidence No. 4-1, and Gap evidence No. 8, and the testimony of the witness I of the trial. In other words, the remodeling construction contract that the Defendant entered into with Eul is already included in the remodeling construction contract that was already established on the second floor of the house of this case, and there was no reason for the Defendant to separately pay the Plaintiff the price for the same household, and the Plaintiff was so delegated by Eul with respect to the remainder of four generations except for the second floor above the ground of this case.