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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is from June 26, 2013 to the point of view that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract from the Defendant for the repair, floor construction, and interior film construction works of DNA and Ecafeteria in Seopo-si C.

7. 4. As the above construction has been completed by April 1, 200, the Defendant sought payment of 16,020,000 won, excluding 3,500,000 won of the work cost.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant entered into a contract with F on March 25, 2013 for the foregoing Del remodeling work, and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from F to F for the said remodeling work.

Therefore, the defendant is not a party who has entered into a subcontract with the plaintiff on the construction work, such as the papering, and is not obligated to pay the construction cost to the plaintiff.

2. According to the records of Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff performed the construction work of 19,520,00 won in the above Domote, floor construction, and interior film construction at the Domote. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of evidence No. 1 alone entered into a construction contract with the defendant for the above Domo film construction, floor construction, and interior film construction with the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case under the premise that the defendant is a party to a construction contract for the above Doing, floor construction, and interior film construction work with the plaintiff is dismissed as there is no reason.