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 August 3, 2015, the Defendant entered into a standard subcontract agreement for construction works with respect to the Saturdays among the Ulsan Urban Residential Housing Construction Project (hereinafter “instant Saturdays”), as follows.
An ordering person: The name of the prime contractor of the project for constructing a new urban-type housing unit B in Ulsan City: The period of construction of soil works among the new urban-type housing construction projects in Ulsan City: the contract amount on August 3, 2015, on March 31, 2016: 3,167,952,000 won: the subcontractor for the comprehensive liquidation construction project: the defendant
B. On August 3, 2015, Korea-U.S. Basic Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-U.S. Basic Construction Co., Ltd”) leased the Defendant’s construction license, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming construction cost by asserting that the instant soil construction was executed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion from the Defendant is that the Plaintiff is the pressure-taking work of the instant earth and sand files among the instant earth and sand works (hereinafter “instant pressure-taking work”).
(2) The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 36,750,00 (excluding value-added tax) and from September 7, 2015 to September 17, 2015. However, the Plaintiff did not receive any remainder of KRW 26,145,00 from the Defendant, despite the completion of the instant pressure-based construction,. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost for the instant pressure-based construction under the provisions of Articles 32, 34, and 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry or the subcontract payment under the provisions of Articles 32, 34, and 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. (2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was not obligated to pay the construction cost for the instant pressure-based construction from the Korea-U.S. Basic
(b) judgment;