beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant to accept the Defendant’s vessel (B; hereinafter referred to as “instant repair contract”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant repair contract”) and received down payment of KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant on the same day.
After the conclusion of the instant repair contract, the Plaintiff received KRW 30,00,000, respectively, from the Defendant on May 22, 2015 and June 3, 2015, respectively, and filed a claim for payment of KRW 159,691,870 for the remainder of the repair cost to the Defendant after completing repair of the instant vessel until June 10, 2015. However, the Plaintiff received only KRW 30,00,000 from the Defendant on June 19, 2015.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining price of KRW 129,691,870 under the repair contract of this case to the plaintiff and the delay damages therefor.
2. According to the evidence No. 3 of the judgment, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant remitted KRW 30,000,000 to the account of C on April 21, 2015, and KRW 30,000,000, respectively, on May 22, 2015, and June 3, 2015, and June 19, 2015, respectively. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff concluded the instant repair contract with the Defendant solely on the basis of each of the above recognized facts and the evidence No. 1, 2, and 4 through 6 as alleged by the Plaintiff.
Rather, in addition to the aforementioned evidence evidence’s statement Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire argument in the witness D’s testimony, the Defendant issued a written request stating that ① the repair of the instant vessel to F, who operates E, was engaged only in the repair of the instant vessel, and ② the F, on May 8, 2015, the Defendant’s employee D claimed KRW 242,113,000 as the cost of repair of the instant vessel (the cost of repair of the instant vessel) (Article 1, but, at the end of the said written request, the said written request states “C representative A (the Plaintiff)” and affixed the same seal. However, at the end of the written request (Evidence 5) written on the same date, the Defendant stated “E representative F” as the Defendant’s “C representative F”).