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

A. The Plaintiff: (a) contracted for the instant construction work to be installed at a container from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”) and completed the instant construction work from the end of April 2014 to the beginning of May 2014; (b) asserted that the Defendant did not receive the construction cost of KRW 33,00,000,000; and (c) claimed against the Defendant for the payment of the said construction cost and the damages for delay.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that, on May 2014, only entered into the instant construction contract with a patrolman A and the Plaintiff did not have contracted the said construction work.

2. In full view of the testimony of the witness B in each of the statements set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (the family identification number attached), the plaintiff may be found to have issued a tax invoice of KRW 33,00,000,000 in total, including the value of supply, to the defendant on May 8, 2014. However, the above facts of recognition and the above evidence alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction of this case from the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was otherwise awarded a contract. Rather, in full view of the purport of the arguments set forth in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the witness testimony, the defendant awarded a contract for the construction of this case to Gap on May 2014, and paid part of the construction price to Gap.

Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that there is a direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, aside from seeking settlement under a separate agreement with A with regard to the instant construction work, is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.