A. On January 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) for the purpose of selling all the products supplied by the said Defendant, and agreed on February 25, 2015 on the scheduled date of opening the business. Around that time, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to contract for the construction of the first class test and repair among the two-story buildings on the ground of Jeonyang-gun E, Jeonyang-gun.

B. At that time, Defendant B subcontracted the above construction to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. Defendant B, from January 10, 2015, ordered Defendant C to perform the construction of the first floor repair work and the interior work of the building owned by the Plaintiff, which was contracted by the Plaintiff from January 10, 2015, and the Plaintiff believed that Defendant C was an employee of the Defendant B and that F, the representative director of Defendant C, was the employee of the Defendant B, and gave a contract for the construction of additional construction cost of KRW 49,143,850 for the second floor of the building.

However, Defendant B unilaterally suspended construction without finishing the construction work until May 2015 after the scheduled date of the commencement of the construction work, and around that time, the Plaintiff rescinded the contract with the above Defendant, and rescinded the contract with the said Defendant by serving the complaint of this case. KRW 22,364,489 is required to repair the defects of the above 1,364,489 and KRW 20,085,183 is required to perform the non-execution part.

Therefore, Defendant B, a contractor for repair works of both the first and second floors, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,364,489 for damages in lieu of defect repair, or damages due to tort or nonperformance, and KRW 20,085,183 for damages due to nonperformance.

Even if F was not entitled by the Plaintiff to receive a contract for the above second floor construction on behalf of the Defendant B, the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff is related to F's franchise disclosure work.