1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 7, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the contractor with respect to the interior work of the multi-family house (hereinafter “instant construction work”) located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant contract”) with the Defendant and the contractor as the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2014.

B. As the instant construction cost, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 30 million on April 9, 2014, and KRW 8 million on May 14, 2014, respectively, and paid KRW 82 million to D, respectively, from May 23, 2014 to July 30, 2014. Furthermore, with the consent of the aforementioned D, the Defendant paid KRW 40,860,000 from August 6, 2014 to August 29, 2014 to the construction companies in charge of construction works, such as electricity, printing teams, and painting during the instant construction works.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant concluded the instant contract with the Defendant and completed the instant construction work. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff KRW 160 million from April 8, 2014 to KRW 40 million, and the remainder of KRW 150 million from the Defendant’s direct payment under the Plaintiff’s consent, excluding KRW 15 million, the Defendant directly treated the subcontractor by the subcontractor. D is merely the Plaintiff’s subcontractor, and it does not consent to the direct payment of D’s construction cost, and it does not have any direct payment of D’s construction cost. The Defendant’s assertion that D’s payment of D’s construction cost or construction cost directly treated under the Defendant’s consent is not effective as the payment of construction cost to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant’s allegation is a site manager of the instant construction site and the entire construction cost was delegated by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s agent or the Defendant paid construction cost or the construction cost paid to D’s direct payment with D’s consent under the legal doctrine.