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

A. On October 8, 2014, the Defendant was awarded a contract with the 1,960,000,000 won for a new house construction project on two parcels, in the Hagu-gun and the Hagu-gun-gun, and two parcels, from a limited liability company B (hereinafter “B”).

B. On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff, who runs the wholesale and retail business, etc. in the name of “D”, issued an electronic tax invoice, which constitutes KRW 40,000,000, tax amount of KRW 40,000, and tax amount of KRW 4,000,000, with respect to painting construction as a person who is supplied with Defendant

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, Eul 2-3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the claim for construction cost, the Plaintiff asserts that, around May 2015, the Defendant shall receive KRW 44,00,000 for the construction cost, since he/she received a contract from the Defendant for a painting work on the part of outer walls, interior walls, rooftop waterproof, etc. of the said apartment house, and completed it at the end of July of the same year.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction work as alleged by the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without examining further.

B. As to the claim for the nominal lender’s liability, the Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the fee for the painting work jointly with B as the nominal lender B.

On August 3, 2015, the defendant approved the use of the name of the recipient when issuing the tax invoice at the request of the actual manager B B around August 3, 2015.

However, in light of the evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3-2 and the purport of the entire argument, the plaintiff is found to have not mistaken B as the contractor in the contract for the above painting work. Therefore, the defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. As to the claim for unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff did not enter into the above contract with the Defendant for painting construction work, and the Defendant was above.