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. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion operates “G” and is engaged in the wholesale retail and packing of asphalt. The G’s representative is the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the actual representative is the Plaintiff.

On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) at the request of the Defendant for KRW 33,000,000,000 for the package work of asphalt at the Incheon International Site (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). As such, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 33,00,000,00.

B. The defendant's assertion did not know the plaintiff and did not conclude the construction contract of this case with the plaintiff.

2. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff concluded the instant construction contract with the defendant.

The defendant merely concluded a construction contract with K (L company) on the ground of his/her employee J, and concluded a contract with the plaintiff's side is not the defendant but K. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant's assertion is supported by the defendant's assertion that "the construction contract was made on November 5, 2015 with the original business operator J, K, and the construction contract amount of KRW 33,000,000", and the defendant paid K to K under the name of the principal or his/her spouse as of November 6, 2015, and the defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 on November 26, 2015, and KRW 3,000,000 on December 30, 2015.

B. K transferred the payee’s KRW 6,60,000 on November 10, 2015, and KRW 1,815,000 on November 26, 2015 to H.

The Plaintiff asserts that “K is the Plaintiff’s obligor, and the money transferred as above is irrelevant to this case.” However, K transferred money to “H” rather than the Plaintiff. In addition to the instant construction project, there was no submission of data from the Plaintiff or H to know the circumstances under which the Plaintiff or H would receive the said money.

C. The plaintiff submitted.