beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with F to enter into a contract with the Defendant for construction works for remodeling up to KRW 290,00,000 of construction cost and up to June 26, 2013, under the joint name of F and F, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction works for remodeling up to KRW 1,2, and3 of the C ground (hereinafter “instant remodeling construction works”). However, the Plaintiff’s joint contractor due to its lack of business registration, was in fact excluded, and the Plaintiff was deprived of its losses from the said construction works, as the Plaintiff did not comply with the opinion between the Plaintiff and F.
B. However, the Defendant called to the Plaintiff to complete the instant remodeling work, and the Plaintiff intended to pay the construction cost upon completion of the instant remodeling work. Accordingly, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s proposal from June 26, 2013 to July 4, 2013, and performed the Doring, flooring, and interior film work of the Domo (2 and 3 floors) and Ecafeteria (1st floor), and completed the construction work by performing the Domo film work of E (1st floor) room by September 2, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 16,020,00,000, excluding the amount of KRW 3,500,000, which was already paid as labor cost of KRW 19,520,000.
2. In conclusion, the Plaintiff, not the construction contract concluded under the joint name with F on March 25, 2013, but thereafter, seeks the payment of the construction price to the Defendant by asserting the right under a separate contract concluded with the Defendant, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the statement in the certificate No. 3 alone is a separate contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Furthermore, the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, which was unilaterally prepared by the plaintiff, alone, has been executed by the plaintiff during the remodeling project of this case from June 26, 2013 to September 2, 2013.