1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2015, the Defendant awarded a contract to C for a remodeling project for a factory located in D at racing-si amounting to KRW 560 million of the construction cost.

B. Around February 17, 2015, C subcontracted to the Plaintiff the removal of equipment and installation works during the said remodeling works to the cost of KRW 280 million. Around March 4, 2015, C subcontracted the said remodeling works to the Plaintiff for the installation of equipment and cooling and heating works (second floor) in an additional amount of KRW 21 million.

[Ground] Evidence No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff incurred additional construction costs of KRW 107,370,000 in the course of completing subcontracted construction works from C; and (b) the Defendant, the original owner of the instant remodeling project, agreed to pay the Plaintiff directly.

Therefore, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the above additional construction cost of KRW 107,370,000 and delay damages.

B. As seen earlier, as seen in the judgment, the Defendant merely ordered C to work, and there is no contractual relationship with the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff incurred additional construction cost in the course of performing part of the remodelling work subcontracted by C, the Plaintiff cannot claim against the Defendant for the additional construction cost, barring any special circumstances.

In this case, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant agreed to pay the additional construction cost directly to the Plaintiff, nor there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Defendant is liable to pay the additional construction cost directly to the Plaintiff.

According to the statement, etc. in Eul evidence No. 4, the defendant paid KRW 99 million to the plaintiff around June 11, 2015 in the course of settling the construction cost against the subcontractor for convenience, and the plaintiff only resolved to the defendant about all the settlement amount of the remodeling work in this case, and raised an objection.