beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The Plaintiff asserts that A was fully paid KRW 30,668,841 of the construction cost claim for the new lien construction work against the Defendant by Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, Inc., and sought payment of the said KRW 30,668,841 as the full payment against the Defendant and the delayed payment damages therefor.
According to the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, and 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff was served on the defendant on September 14, 2017 and confirmed around that time by delivery to the defendant on September 18, 2017, with the title of execution of the Daegu District Court Decision 2017Gau207353 decided on August 17, 2017, which was rendered against Gap corporation as the title of execution of the decision of 2017Gau207Gau207353 decided on September 14, 2017.
However, there is no evidence to deem that A had a claim for the construction cost for the kindergarten Construction Corporation B in Kimcheon-si against the defendant, and that A had a contract for any construction work with the defendant with respect to the new kindergarten Construction Corporation in Kimcheon-si.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the parties to a subcontract with the Defendant as of July 14, 2016 determined the construction period for the part of reinforced concrete construction works (hereinafter “instant construction”) among Kimcheon-si Kindergarten Construction Works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from July 30, 2016 to September 30, 2016, the contract amount of which is KRW 352,00,00 (including value-added tax) shall be set as KRW 352,00,00, and the parties to the subcontract between the Defendant and the Defendant as of July 14, 2016 are D who operated the personal business in the name of “C”. Since the said subcontract was concluded, A corporation may only recognize the fact that the said D is a separate corporation established on October 25, 2016.
In addition, according to the evidence above, the defendant had already raised an objection between July 15, 2016 and November 25, 2016, which was the day before the plaintiff was served with the order of seizure and assignment.