beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in tegrology fishery in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, was engaged in tegrology fishery. Nonparty E’s introduction made an oral agreement with the Defendant to implement internal tegrology construction with respect to egrology owned by the Defendant. From March 2013 to May 2013, the Plaintiff performed internal tegrology construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) such as internal repair, etc. with respect to 5-dong 306, Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. The Defendant deposited a total of KRW 110 million in E’s account as of March 13, 2013; KRW 50 million on March 20, 2013; KRW 10 million on March 29, 2013; and KRW 90 million on March 29, 2013; and KRW 110 million from the Defendant’s above money received from the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
C. On April 15, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 30 million, KRW 40 million on April 30, 2013, KRW 110 million on May 11, 2013, and KRW 100 million on the construction price additionally to the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The plaintiff asserted that the construction of this case was completed after making an oral agreement with the defendant about KRW 282 million with respect to the construction of this case. Since the plaintiff received KRW 200 million among the above construction price, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 62 million remaining after deducting KRW 20 million with respect to the issue arising from the household supplied by non-party G among the remaining construction price of KRW 82 million.
B. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the construction cost of the instant construction work amounting to KRW 282 million, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the construction cost of the instant construction work amounting to KRW 282 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, the plaintiff is against the defendant.