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 parties' assertion
A. On October 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for waste concrete collection services with the Defendant (including value added tax) and performed services equivalent to KRW 880,000 (including value added tax) on October 6, 2015 under the said contract, but the Defendant paid KRW 80,000 out of the above service price on December 29, 2016, and did not pay KRW 4,194,400.
Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the remaining service cost of KRW 4,194,400 and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff concluded a waste concrete collection service contract with A, which is the Defendant’s subcontractor, and did not have concluded a contract with the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the service price to the Plaintiff.
2. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract for waste concrete collection with the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, as follows: (a) Party A, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 7; and (b) Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10; and (c) witness B’s testimony, and the entire purport of the pleading.
It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to pay the waste concrete collection services to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.
① On July 6, 2015, the Defendant entered into a subcontract on KRW 26,400,00 with respect to “satisfying construction from among “A” and “C Haban Factory Enlargement Construction Works,” and the terms and conditions of the said contract stipulate that “the disposal of residual waste related to construction works shall be treated entirely outside the country,” and the said contract amount includes KRW 7,418,80,00 for waste disposal expenses for 806.40 tons of waste concrete, and thus, the Defendant appears to have no reason to enter into a contract on waste concrete collection services with the Plaintiff, separate from the said subcontract.
② Defendant and B shall be on December 30, 2015.