A. In around 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the 105 household uniting works of the 105 household uniting in the Dog-si building (hereinafter “instant Dog-si”), and the Plaintiff was paid the 160,000 won for the Dog-si’s Dog-si’s Dog-based Dog-based 7,000 won for food, 30,000 won for vehicle operation expenses, and additional material expenses for the Dog-si Do as the contract amount.

From February 1, 2017 to April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff invested 316 air demand in the said Doing System, operated 84 times, paid 790,000 won as supplementary materials, and paid 600,000 won as value-added tax on the material cost to be paid by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff received only KRW 26,00,000 from the Defendant, and thus, sought payment of KRW 30,682,000 unpaid to the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff stated to the effect that the Defendant was directly employed by the Defendant in the criminal case against Defendant D, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the instant design works from the Defendant is inappropriate.

Even if the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the instant wholesale work, it is merely KRW 160,000 wage and KRW 6,000 for the money invested as a 273 public veterinarian and the 1st public allowance to be paid.

There is no agreement to separately pay expenses for vehicle operation, expenses for subsidiary materials, and value-added tax.

In addition, the Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 to P in addition to KRW 26,00,000 that was already paid to the Plaintiff, and paid the price for the instant wholesale work to P according to the direction of the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s determination as to whether the Plaintiff had contracted for the instant Doging construction from the Defendant, and the relevant parties, who commenced the instant Doging construction on February 1, 2017 and completed the instant Doging construction on April 3, 2017, did not have any dispute between them. In full view of the respective entries and the entire purport of the arguments in Gap 2, 3, and Eul 2 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the entire arguments, the Plaintiff is from the Defendant.