beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Defendant’s construction of a new building on the ground of Jeon Chang-gun, Cho Chang-gun (hereinafter “instant construction”), and the Defendant’s South-North East-gun D contacted the Plaintiff and asked the Plaintiff to perform the part of the instant construction during telephone conversations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant performed the said construction work from October 2015 to November 2015, and the fact that the construction cost for the said construction work was KRW 13,50,000, may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) the entry of evidence No. 1; and (c) the testimony and the entire purport of the entire pleadings by the witness D of the instant court.
According to the above facts of recognition, the contract for construction work between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 13,500,000.
B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) contracted the instant construction work to E; (b) paid the entire construction cost to E; and (c) did not have concluded a separate contract for construction work with the Plaintiff; and (d) did not have the obligation to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff.
According to the contents of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of branch offices) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the fact that the Defendant contracted the instant construction to E and paid the construction cost of KRW 100,000,000 is recognized.
However, ① The owner of the instant construction was the defendant, ② the defendant argued that he introduced the plaintiff to E after being introduced to the plaintiff via the same student D, but the defendant itself is the fact that he received the plaintiff from D, and the plaintiff stated that he is a person who is not aware of the plaintiff in this court, ③ the recording (Evidence No. 6) between the plaintiff and A is difficult to view that the plaintiff performed the said creative construction through E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.