beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff is a person who runs steel-frame business with the trade name of “D,” and Defendant B is the representative director of the Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”), Defendant C is a husband who is engaged in the sales of steel products and the manufacture of structures.
(2) The Defendants received a subcontract for the steel-frame portion among the new construction works of G Hospital implemented by F Co., Ltd., and re-subcontracted to the Plaintiff at KRW 146,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) around August 12, 2010.
(3) The Plaintiff completed re-subcontracting construction including additional construction around October 30, 2010, but did not receive KRW 64,640,000 out of the construction cost from the Defendants.
B. (1) As to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendants first asserted that the Defendants are not the Defendants but the Defendants who concluded a sub-subcontract with the Plaintiff, and therefore, whether the sub-subcontract is the subcontractor.
(2) Above all, the party who was subcontracted the steel structure part of the initial hospital construction project is not Defendant B, but E (No. 6, A10, A15, etc.), and E, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, it is reasonable for E to become the party concerned in light of the trade norms.
In fact, E has prepared a written consent to pay the construction price directly to H Company I, a sub-contractor, and also issued a tax invoice in the future, such as the Iln Steel Co., Ltd., which supplied steel structures for subcontracted construction.
(A) In addition, with documents indicating the fact of concluding a sub-subcontract, there are certificates (No. 16) prepared by the Plaintiff in consultation with B, the representative director of the E at the time of re-subcontract, and the standard subcontract agreement for construction works prepared for industrial accident insurance (Evidence No. 1). The title holder of both documents is not Defendant B but E.
All of the above circumstances.