1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff subcontracted the instant construction to the Defendant with KRW 6,634,00 [the materials cost of KRW 35,196,00 labor cost of KRW 25,117,00 and general management cost of KRW 3,015,650 (5% of the total materials cost and labor cost of KRW 5,00) and expenses (5% of the total materials cost of KRW 3,105,650, and less than KRW 3,105,650] among the materials cost and multi-household construction work in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 12 million to the Defendant as construction price.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant, upon receiving the construction cost, suspended construction in the underground door door of KRW 2,283,00,000, and thus, sought the return of KRW 12 million paid by the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with Nau General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nau General Construction”), and the Defendant entered into a contract with IMD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “MDC”), and thus, the actual parties to the subcontract are the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. Defendant 1) The party who subcontracted the instant construction work is NAN and the party who contracted the construction work is IMD. Thus, the Defendant, not the contracting party to the instant construction, is not obligated to return the construction cost. 2) The Defendant, while performing the instant construction work from December 2014 to January 8, 2015, performed the instant construction work to D on December 18, 2014 at the cost of material, KRW 4 million,00,000,000 for material cost, KRW 3,20,000 for personnel cost, KRW 3,20,000 for on-site workers, and KRW 1,50,000 for personnel cost, etc. to E who is a metal business operator on December 2014, is not obligated to return the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

As above, the Defendant was in progress while performing the construction work and between the Defendant and the Defendant on January 2015.