1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (1) On August 15, 2015, the Plaintiff (subcontractor) entered into a contract with the Defendant (subcontract) under which the part of the “B-Newly constructed construction” portion of the “B-built construction work” is to receive sewage in KRW 200 million, via C, with the Defendant’s agent.

(2) Although the Plaintiff completed all construction works under the said subcontract, the Plaintiff received 40 million won from the Defendant’s direct contractor, Taeju District Co., Ltd. on November 25, 2015, and the remainder of 1.60 million won for construction work has not yet been paid.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for payment of KRW 160 million for the remainder of construction and damages for delay, as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Eul 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), the defendant (contractor) entered into a contract with the main contractor in the Daegu District District (contractor) around December 2014 to receive sewage of KRW 2,97,70,00,00, and C entered into a contract with the defendant on January 5, 2015 to receive the re-payment of KRW 1,100,000,00,000, which is part of the above construction. The defendant entered into a contract with the defendant on January 5, 2015 to receive the re-payment of KRW 1,089,569,470 (the amount included in KRW 202,311,90,00, which was paid directly by the defendant to the sub-contractor in the construction price).

In full view of the facts acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence of the plaintiff's submission, that is, the stamp image affixed to the defendant's name on the construction contract (A1) is so-called "employee seal impression, which is different from the defendant's corporate seal impression, and that C is indicated as the defendant's representative, but in the work completion certificate (A2), and the payment note (A3), C does not have a direct verification of whether C is a legitimate representative at the time of entering into the contract of this case, it is held that C is a director of the defendant, even though C is a director

Even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is that of the defendant C.