The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff (the representative of the Co., Ltd.) received from the Defendant a land reclamation project on the ground of 3469 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant construction project”), and the relevant details are as follows.

Construction amount: 25,00,000 won for soil and sand reclamation, 16,500,000 won for stone and stone construction amounting to 41,50,000 won for total amount: From May 30, 2014 to June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of performance of construction works (hereinafter “instant construction performance letter”) to the Defendant on October 6, 2014, and delivered it to the Defendant on October 15, 2014, respectively.

On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a written estimate of KRW 25,376,710 (hereinafter “instant estimate”) in total on the pretext of the cost of construction equipment, E company, auxiliary personnel, soil and sand, equipment cost, etc. (hereinafter “instant estimate”), and a tax invoice of KRW 87,780,000 (value 79,80,000 value-added tax of KRW 79,80,000) in total on January 31, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the plaintiff's assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the original defendant, who entered into an additional contract for a stone construction project on October 9, 2014, and accordingly, the plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant by issuing a written estimate, tax invoice, etc. around January 26, 2015. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above amount to the plaintiff.

The construction of this case was delayed because the Defendant failed to resolve civil petitions, such as dump truck access interference with the residents of Dongine, and the Defendant purchased a cump to directly carry out dump construction, and requested the Plaintiff to continuously pay the relevant expenses for each construction work, and paid some of the expenses by January 24, 2015. Thus, there is no validity of the construction performance angle and performance angle of this case.

Judgment

The following circumstances, i.e., the facts of the recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings, are revealed.