beta
Text
1. As to KRW 162,200,000 and KRW 155,00,000 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A Co., Ltd., from June 11, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination on the claim for construction cost of KRW 155 million
A. The description of the claim is as indicated in the part against Defendant A among the “reasons for Claim” and “a modified cause of claim” attached to the description of the claim.
(b) Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;
2. Determination on the claim for construction cost of KRW 7.2 million
A. (1) On July 2015, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is determined as follows: (a) around July 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement with Defendant B on the construction cost of KRW 15.4 million for the Electric Power and Telecommunications Corporation among D New Construction Works in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (b) Defendant B paid KRW 8.2 million to the Plaintiff; and (c) Defendant B is not obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 7.2 million for the unpaid construction cost to the Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 7.2 million and its delay damages. (b) With respect to whether the Plaintiff entered into the subcontract as alleged by Defendant B, there is insufficient
(A) No. 6-2 is a tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff, and the content thereof is the content of claiming construction cost of KRW 15.4 million to Defendant B, and it is difficult to conclude that the said tax invoice is a document unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff, and the construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff is the construction cost based on the subcontract agreement asserted by the Plaintiff. According to the evidence No. 7, even though Defendant B transferred the said money to the Plaintiff on September 9, 2016, and on October 27, 2016, it is recognized that Defendant B transferred the money to the Plaintiff, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant B transferred the money as above to the Plaintiff under the subcontract agreement as asserted by the Plaintiff, and it cannot be ruled out that the said money was transferred during other transactions). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
B. (1) Determination as to the conjunctive claim is as indicated in the attached Form “the cause of the claim” and “the cause of the modified claim” and as indicated in the part against Defendant A. 2) of the Civil Procedure Act.