beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.
Reasons
1. Around August 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) around four construction sites, including Sungnam-si; (b) from the Defendant, the Plaintiff provided services and human resources for the portion of the molding hole among the construction works contracted by the Plaintiff; and (c) performed construction works without an individual agreement on the contract amount and the construction volume of each construction site; (d) around February 2018, the Defendant’s subcontractor’s subcontractor ceased to perform construction works on the wind of the Sungnam-si E site; and (e) on April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement as shown in the attached Form.
(A) Evidence Nos. 1 and 12-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings). 2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim
A. On July 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to complete all construction sites by the end of July 2018, and paid 15250,000 won and 6.250,000 won for the Seoul G G site’s personnel expenses, respectively, to the Defendant under the status of 55% of the base rate for return of unjust enrichment. Since the Defendant was not a construction, the sum of the above personnel expenses paid by the Plaintiff ought to be returned to the Defendant as unjust enrichment.
B. The part of the claim for damages, which the Defendant left alone, sustained a loss of KRW 75,892,340,00 for the construction cost for the purpose of finishing the work on behalf of the Plaintiff, and (2) the Defendant incurred a loss of KRW 4,50,000 for the repair of the mar mold-type defect in the course of performing the work on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the remaining amount after deducting the remaining amount that the Plaintiff would have to pay if the Defendant had completed the work on behalf of the Plaintiff, from each of the above damages, KRW 12,692,00,000,000, which was not actually paid to the subcontractor by the Defendant.
3. The part concerning the claim for unjust enrichment and damages, as well as the claim for unjust enrichment and damages, is basically paid to the construction contractor in excess of the construction contractor’s executed part.