beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 11, 2009, the Defendant concluded a contract to subcontract solar power generation installation works to the cost of KRW 5.5 billion (the cost of solar power generation was reduced to KRW 5.5 billion) (the cost of solar power generation works reduced to KRW 5.434 billion) at the permanent dwelling period that the Defendant received from the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”), and the Defendant’s Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”).
B. On June 9, 2010, the Plaintiff divided and merged the part of the electrical construction business from fire to fire, and hereinafter “this case’s merger after division.”
(C) On June 14, 2010, the registration of the instant division and merger was completed. (c) The Defendant agreed to reduce the construction cost of KRW 6,600,000,000 from April 15, 2010 and the unpaid construction cost under the instant contract (i.e., KRW 1182,50,000,000 not issued tax invoice) by KRW 682,50,000,000,000,000 from April 20, 2010 to November 30, 2010. The Defendant paid KRW 1,67,000,000,000 from the construction cost of the instant contract to KRW 6,00,000 from the construction cost of the instant contract after the lawsuit with the Defendant and the original contractor, and agreed to reduce the construction cost of KRW 1,60,00,00 among the construction cost of the instant contract.
2. The Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost claim amounting to KRW 193.8 million against the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1.., KRW 1.664.5 billion - KRW 66.7 billion - KRW 66.7 million). Since the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to the instant claim following the instant merger by split, pursuant to Article 530-10 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 193.8 million to the Plaintiff, a company after the instant merger by split, for the construction cost claim amounting to KRW 19.3.8 million against the company before the merger by split.
3. First of all, as to whether the instant claim was a claim that the Plaintiff succeeded to the division and merger of this case, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 2 and 11 are written.