beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) are only the same company, and the Defendant is a person who operates “D” as the human design and construction business chain.
① On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to pay 46 million won of the construction cost for the alteration of the use of Busan District E-gu, Busan, and entered into a contract with the Defendant and the contractor as the contractor.
② On July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to pay KRW 65 million of the construction cost for fire-fighting facility works for the change of the use of the above location, and entered into a contract with the Defendant and the contractor C.
③ Since then, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 26,30,000 of the construction cost of the Gamo Electric Repair Works in the Gamoto F in Kimhae-si.
The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay the total construction cost of KRW 137,300,000 (=66,000,000 won) and KRW 26,30,000,000). The Plaintiff completed all of the above construction work.
By December 24, 2012, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 74 million out of the total construction cost of KRW 137,33 million (= KRW 137,300,000 - KRW 74,000). Of them, the Defendant excluded KRW 19,30,000,000 for the contractor C (=63,330,000 won - KRW 19,300,000).
Since the Defendant operated D with H as a partnership business, it is jointly and severally obligated with H to pay the above construction cost of KRW 44 million to the Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff is not a partner, it is obligated to pay the above construction cost of KRW 44 million as the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. The defendant did not conclude a contract for construction with the plaintiff, and there is no fact that the defendant carried on the business with H.
The above construction contract claimed by the Plaintiff was concluded by H with the Plaintiff by lending the name of the business operator to the Defendant, and at the time, the Plaintiff was aware that the actual contractual party was not the Defendant.
Of the KRW 44 million sought by the Plaintiff, KRW 41 million (i.e., KRW 5 million on April 26, 2012), KRW 10 million on May 26, 2012, KRW 3 million on May 26, 2012, KRW 40 million on December 24, 2012, KRW 3 million on December 24, 2012).