beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
The defendant.
Reasons
The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of the claim is that the defendant contracted the construction of urban-type residential housing to D, and D subcontracted the construction of the new urban-type residential housing to the plaintiff in July 201.
After that, the above Corporation was suspended, and at the time, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 24.75 million for the construction cost.
Then, while the Defendant directly implements the above construction, the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the construction cost of KRW 1,538,000 on May 26, 2012, and KRW 4.3 million on June 19, 2012, and completed the said construction work. The Defendant paid only KRW 5 million out of the construction cost directly operated by the Defendant, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 1,468,00.
Therefore, from July 8, 2012, in order to secure the unpaid construction cost, the Plaintiff exercised the right of retention by using locking devices at the above living house entrance and the 27 original studio. The Defendant, around August 2012, invaded the locking device into the above living house and deprived the Plaintiff’s possession and interfered with the exercise of the right of retention.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 14.68 million and the delay damages therefor, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the subcontract construction cost of KRW 24.75 million and the directly owned construction cost of KRW 14.68 million and the delay damages therefrom.
Judgment
The judgment of the cost of direct construction 1,4680,00 won is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the construction work of miscellaneous and glass, and the Plaintiff completed the construction work, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
The plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.
According to each statement of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11, the judgment of the damages claim amounting to 3,9430,00 won due to the obstruction of the exercise of the right of retention, the plaintiff c. from July 8, 2012 to Mapopo City.