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

A. On January 8, 2013, Sungnam-si published an electronic bid announcement with an estimated construction price of 212,465,000 won for the instant electrical construction (hereinafter “the instant electrical construction”) with the construction price of 212,465,00 won.

B. On January 31, 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract with Sungnam-si and the instant electrical construction contract for KRW 205,678,210, which was selected as an electrical constructor at the said tender.

C. The Defendant issued a seal necessary for receiving the instant electrical construction price from Sungnam City, a passbook in the name of the Defendant, and a cash withdrawal card to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 11,00,000,000 on August 4, 2013, and KRW 11,000,000 on August 28, 2013, and KRW 6,000,000 on September 17, 2013 to the account under the name of the Defendant, and used it as the expense for the instant electrical construction.

On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted the completion fraternity (198,576,863 won) at Sungnam-si (198,576,863 won) in the name of the Defendant, and on May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff completed registration of preservation of ownership in relation to C childcare centers.

E. By April 21, 2014, Sungnam-si paid KRW 149,06,590 to the Defendant’s deposit account in the Defendant’s name. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 110,368,546 out of the said amount, and used KRW 26,01,81,810 out of the said amount as the price for goods.

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff purchased a national health insurance policy, etc. from July 1, 2013 to April 26, 2014 as an employment provided policyholder who received remuneration from the Defendant.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s 1 through 5, 13, 14, 15 (including each number), Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant asserted that he would pay all the remainder except value-added tax out of the construction cost paid to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff had assigned all the electrical construction of this case to the plaintiff, because he did not claim that the defendant did not perform the electrical construction of this case and did not claim that the plaintiff will pay the plaintiff the electrical construction of this case.

2.3.