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. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 25, 2010, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) entered into a contract with D Housing Redevelopment Development Project Association regarding the site removal and remaining disposal of redevelopment projects.
B. On November 18, 2015, Defendant B entered into a subcontract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) with respect to the above removal work at KRW 1.1 billion for the said removal work.
Defendant C is the chief of the construction division of Defendant B, who has overall control over the removal work.
C. The Plaintiff is a sub-subcontractor who was sub-subcontracted with the aforementioned removal works from E and actually performed the said removal works from November 20, 2015 to March 15, 2016.
The Plaintiff received only the cost of removal works from E from January 2016, and did not receive the total of KRW 135 million from February 2, 2016.
E. On May 17, 2016, Defendant B agreed with the D Housing Redevelopment Project Association to terminate and settle the original contract for the said removal work on May 25, 2010.
F. On May 20, 2016, Defendant B, E, and the Plaintiff renounced the removal work, and Defendant B immediately paid KRW 70 million out of the construction cost that the Plaintiff had not received from E, and the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement on the settlement of accounts for construction with the content of the settlement of accounts for the said construction.
G. On behalf of Defendant B, around May 2016, Defendant C entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the input of the removal equipment on behalf of the Plaintiff, and that Defendant B would directly pay the Plaintiff the cost of construction directly invested.
H. The Plaintiff filed a criminal charge by deceiving the Plaintiff, which was the representative director of F, C, and Defendant B, who is the operator of Defendant B, and obtained a exemption from the Plaintiff from the liability for the cost of removal of KRW 65 million, but he was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution of suspicion (defluence of evidence).
[Reasons for Recognition] A 1.