beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 185,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant for the construction period of the part of the waterproof Construction Work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from March 15, 201 to December 31, 201, with the construction cost of KRW 185,00,000 from March 15, 201 and the construction cost of KRW 185,00,000 from March 15, 201
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”). B.
On the same day, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement between the Defendant and the household designated by the Defendant on the construction cost (hereinafter “instant accord and satisfaction agreement”).
C. The instant construction was completed around December 31, 201.
[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant alleged by the plaintiff to the plaintiff that sold the above Nos. 701 to the third party, even though the construction cost of this case was set at the body of the substitute in accordance with the payment agreement in this case. Thus, the payment agreement in this case was impossible for the defendant to perform its obligations
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 185,000,000 and the delay damages.
Since the Defendant’s assertion B entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff and carried out the instant construction project, the actual contractor of the instant construction project is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff did not have the claim for the construction price of this case.
Furthermore, the household that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant payment agreement is not 701 but 907, and 907 are not sold to others.
Judgment
The question of who the party to the contract of this case is the plaintiff or the party to the contract of this case is the interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract, and the interpretation of the expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the party has given to the expression of intent.