beta
Text
1. Defendants A, B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 45,414,300 won and the aforementioned amount on August 1, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. E and F, a married couple’s death, decided to newly construct a tenement house (hereinafter “instant loan”) on the G ground of the Gyeongdong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, G, and ordered Defendant Mancheon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Mancheon Construction”).
Defendant A’s loan No. 101, Defendant B (E representative director; hereinafter “Defendant B”) is the owner of the instant loan No. 102, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) and Defendant D’s loan No. 103, and Defendant D’s loan No. 104.
B. The loan of this case was finally approved for use on June 29, 2017, and Defendant 1, as agreed upon, packaged the parking lot as concrete as stated in the contract.
C. From June 14, 2017 to July 31, 2017, the construction of the instant loan parking lot (hereinafter “instant packing construction”) was carried out, and the construction of the instant packing construction (hereinafter “Sa Development”) was carried out. In performing the instant packing construction, the materials and the Plaintiff supplied each equipment.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claim against Defendant A, B, C, and D
(a) Claim for rent of equipment leased by the Plaintiff to carry out the packing work in the instant case and repair work;
(b) Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act to determine each confession.
3. Claim for the construction of the defendant Yacheon Construction
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, upon receiving a request for the lease of equipment for packing construction from Defendant Yacheon Construction, the Plaintiff leased equipment from June 15, 2017 to July 31, 2017 for packing construction and repair of defects, Defendant Yacheon General Construction should pay the rent of equipment 45,414,300 won and damages for delay.
As to this, Defendant Macheon Construction did not enter into a contract for equipment leasing with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff.