1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 138,881,60, and KRW 20% per annum from March 17, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), Eul witness Eul's testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings:

On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract with the Defendant for the construction cost of 130,000 won per square meter (the down payment of KRW 20,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 25,000,000) among the new construction of a row house on a plot of land, other than C, in a permanent residence, and six parcels of farmland (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Defendant paid 20,000,000 won to the Plaintiff out of the instant construction cost.

C. The instant construction was completed on October 2013, and the final construction cost after completion is KRW 158,881,600.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction, or even if not, the Plaintiff transferred its contractor status to B during the instant construction works, but actually continued and completed the instant construction works.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the remainder of the construction work of this case to the plaintiff.

B. Defendant 1) The Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant claim for construction cost against the Defendant by B constitutes a lawsuit trust that is not allowed and thus, is unlawful. 2) The actual contract for the instant construction project is D, the owner of the building, and the Defendant only lent its name.

3. On August 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff renounced all the rights to the instant construction works, and thereafter acquired construction works on the E side, which is a material supplier, but still delayed construction works, and the Defendant completed construction works by directly contracting to F, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost.

3. In a case where the assignment of claims, etc. is mainly carried out with respect to the judgment of the main defense, even if the assignment of claims does not constitute a trust under the Trust Act, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void by analogy, and the act of litigation shall be conducted.