1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 2015, the Defendant: (a) contracted with the Korea-U.S. Basic Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-U.S. Basic Construction”); (b) performed the instant construction (hereinafter “instant construction”); and (c) the Plaintiff was the head of the relevant construction site.

B. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 3,630,000 (including value-added tax) in the name of the Korea-U.S. Basic Construction.

C. The Plaintiff, on September 24, 2015, remitted each of the KRW 1830,000 to the Defendant and KRW 2 million on September 25, 2015 to the Korea-U.S. Basic Construction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff, who was the head of the site site office due to the difficulties in the progress of the instant construction due to the bankruptcy of the Korea-U.S. Basic Construction, completed the construction on behalf of the defendant.

On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the construction price of KRW 1830,00 on behalf of the Defendant, and thereafter, agreed to return the said KRW 1830,000 to the Plaintiff upon receipt of the payment of the construction price from Han-U.S. Basic Construction. Since the Defendant received KRW 2,00,000 from Han-U.S. Basic Construction on September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the construction price of KRW 1830,00

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Defendant actually performed the instant construction at the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff appears to have paid 1830,000 won to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, ② the Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 363,00 for the construction cost on July 31, 2015, and the amount seems to have no special objection from the Plaintiff or the Han-U.S. Basic Construction, ③ the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid the construction cost in advance to the Defendant on account of the nonperformance of Han-U.S. Basic Construction, but the Defendant immediately following the date when the Plaintiff paid 183,00 won to the Defendant.