beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On February 14, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant contracted to the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D “E Hospital” Medical Service Corporation C (hereinafter “C”), and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the construction of the ceiling and the wall in the instant construction.
On May 3, 2019, the Plaintiff acquired 110,180,00 won among the construction price to be paid by C from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 110,180,000 and the delay damages therefor.
2. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3, 5, and 1, and 3, considering the overall purport of the pleadings, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Defendant entered into a contract on construction works of this case with the Defendant as the representative director, i.e., the contract on construction works of this case, which was made with respect to the construction works of this case, as indicated below, F is the insured even in the performance guarantee insurance policy issued by C as to the construction works of this case, iii) the contract on assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is described as the obligor as the obligor, and the Defendant is not indicated as the obligor, and 4) the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 2019Gahap10753, Jun. 25, 2019 against F as the obligor, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant entered into a contract on construction works of this case with C.
The plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit without further determination.
The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's assertion that the contract is not a party to the contract in the lawsuit in this case is contrary to the good faith, since the defendant expressed his intention to pay the construction cost claim from C without any objection.
However, the statement of Gap evidence No. 6 alone is separate from F Co., Ltd.