beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff B’s KRW 36,100,714, Plaintiff D, and C respectively, KRW 24,067,142 and each of the said money.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as follows, given the fact that there is no dispute over the facts of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1 (a statement of the performance of the labor cost payment, and the result of appraisal of Gap evidence No. 1's seal appraisal of appraisal, it is judged that the defendant's seal portion of Gap evidence No. 1 is similar to the defendant's seal impression, and considering the fact that Gap evidence No. 2, which the defendant denied the authenticity, is recognized as being withdrawn by the defendant's seal impression, and therefore the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been withdrawn by the defendant's seal impression, according to the result of appraisal of Gap evidence No. 2 (a letter of renunciation and each letter of renunciation, and appraiser E's seal appraisal, it is presumed that the defendant's seal portion of the document was reproduced by the defendant's seal impression, and it is presumed that the authenticity of document is established by Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act), Gap evidence No.
A. The deceased A (the deceased died on December 26, 2014, and the Plaintiff B, the Plaintiff C, and D are children; hereinafter the deceased) supplied the figures from Ulsan Central District F to G in the construction site.
B. The Defendant’s temporary works and reinforced concrete construction works among H apartment construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) at the time of dysia from Nonparty M&A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB”) (hereinafter “S”) and August 15, 2013;
9. On March 4, 2014, each of the above subcontracting projects, which was subcontracted on October 23, 2012, was lowered.
C. On March 5, 2014, the Deceased and the Defendant drafted a written statement of performance (hereinafter “instant performance statement”) with which the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 34,00,000,00 to the Plaintiff, as it paid KRW 101,102,102,103,104, 104, 105, and 106, and 34,000,00 personnel expenses for dismantling and disposing of aggregate construction works on the second floor above the 106, 106, respectively.
Nonparty I and the Defendant on March 5, 2014 at the construction site of this case.