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

A. On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she entered into a subcontract with the non-party sub-contractor Construction Co., Ltd., a contractor, and that he/she was engaged in light-weight construction works at the site of the construction of the NAV-dong EER-dong.

Although the Plaintiff completed the said construction, Nonparty Busan Construction Co., Ltd. paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 185,000,000 and KRW 15,000,000,000 for additional construction costs, and paid only KRW 50,000,000 among the total of KRW 185,00,000 for additional construction costs, and did not pay the remainder of construction cost.

On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant, who was the executor of the above construction site, to pay the construction price directly in accordance with the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

B. The defendant alleged that the defendant did not have entered into a direct contract with the plaintiff, and there was a fact that he entered into a construction contract with the non-party subsidiary Construction Co., Ltd., but already paid the construction price to the non-party subsidiary Construction Co., Ltd., the plaintiff's claim of this case

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6-138 of the evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the Defendant first concluded a contract for construction of the apartment complex in the Jinjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jinjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, for the construction of the apartment complex, on December 18, 2013, and until October 31, 2015, the Defendant paid the construction cost under the construction contract to the non-party Jinjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Therefore, as of March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case, based on the premise that the Defendant’s construction price payable to Non-Party Incidental Construction Co., Ltd. remains, is without merit without further review.

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