Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant received and supplied electrical construction parts among the construction works ordered by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation for Pyeongtaek-si apartment.

B. On December 20, 2014, the Plaintiff completed part of the electrical construction and fire fighting construction and fire fighting construction for seven Dongs from Ddong to Edong from the aforementioned electrical construction (hereinafter “instant construction”).

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for appeal Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The Plaintiff agreed to KRW 31,00 per square meter upon receiving the instant construction project from the Defendant and agreed on KRW 386,415,00 per square meter. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 48,832,750, excluding the cost of construction directly paid by the Defendant 337,582,250, out of the Plaintiff’s total construction cost of KRW 12,465 (=12,465 x 31,000). The Defendant is merely a employee of the Defendant’s work, and the Defendant did not have concluded a construction contract with the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost is unjustifiable.

B. 1) Determination as to whether a contract for a construction project was concluded, as well as Gap evidence 5 to 13 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant, after the completion of the instant construction work, sent the Plaintiff by e-mail the details of expenditure, such as labor cost and food expenses incurred in the instant construction, by arranging the details of the expenditure of the instant construction in the document, whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s director F erred in the part of the Defendant’s settlement, and whether the Plaintiff’s reasonable price was discussed to calculate the construction cost that the Plaintiff would receive, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff to have been awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work from the Defendant, and as alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is merely employed by the Defendant.