The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On January 22, 2020, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion made goods of KRW 349,00,000 in total from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) to the Defendant’s executor and D Co., Ltd. under a subcontract for the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction of the construction works of the construction works of the construction works of the construction works of the construction works of the construction works of the construction works of the construction works of the construction works of Yeongdeungpo-gu Ethal Y-gu, Young-gu (hereinafter “instant construction works”) and supplied them to the construction site of this case. Thereafter, the Plaintiff’s construction work was discontinued as the Defendant and D did not succeed to the construction contract with

Around April 2020, before the construction of this case was terminated, the Defendant, D, and the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant’s acceptance of the construction cost of this case to be paid to the Plaintiff by mutual agreement between three parties.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost of this case and the delayed damages thereof directly to the plaintiff according to the agreement between the above three parties under Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

2. According to each of the evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 8, it is recognized that D sent a certified mail to the purport that "the Defendant would have agreed to accept and arrange the instant construction cost en bloc" to the Plaintiff or the Defendant on May 2020.

However, the Defendant agreed to pay the instant construction cost directly to the Plaintiff solely with the unilateral statement made by D, which does not conflict with the interests of the Defendant.

It is difficult to recognize it.

Each evidence submitted by the remaining plaintiff and the circumstances that the plaintiff attempted to exercise the right of retention at the construction site of this case are insufficient to recognize that there was a direct payment agreement between the plaintiff, D and the defendant. Rather, according to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant agreed to determine the construction cost incurred after March 20, 2020, which was the time of discontinuance of construction work, as KRW 382,668,00,00.