2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

A. On March 5, 2012, the Defendant awarded a contract for construction work for urban-type residential housing (hereinafter “instant construction work”) located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the construction cost of KRW 450,00,000, and the construction period of KRW 120,000, to the Codefendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance trial on March 5, 2012. However, the Defendant paid the construction cost as the design deposit, the progress payment as the urban-type residential fund, and the remainder as the rental deposit received by leasing the newly constructed building.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

C On April 13, 2013, among the instant construction works, subcontracted to the Plaintiff KRW 39,50,000 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) the door door and the door door construction work (hereinafter “instant subcontract”), and the Plaintiff.

6. 15. The subcontracted project (hereinafter “instant subcontracted project”) was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff should pay KRW 39,500,000 to the plaintiff as the owner of the housing in this case and the contractor of the construction in this case as the contractor of the construction in this case. However, the defendant is not a party to the subcontract in this case, but is not a party to the subcontract in this case, and it cannot be viewed that he is obligated to pay the subcontract in this case as a matter of course solely on the ground that he is the owner of

B. In addition, the Plaintiff’s payment method for the construction cost of the subcontracted project in the instant case with C and the subcontractor is “201 et al.” among the instant housing.

By leasing B, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 39,500,000 out of the rental deposit, and the Defendant consented thereto, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 39,500,000 to the Plaintiff.

However, even according to the above argument by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's 201 between C and C.