1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion was a collector at the Plaintiff church from September 2014 to November 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction”). However, the Plaintiff’s construction of the fourth floor of the Plaintiff church from September 2014 to November 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction”), but the occurrence of the defect after completion of the construction (the defect in floor construction, singler construction, lighting and electrical construction due to singler reconstruction, shower and marketing, defect in the main floor construction, the defect in the main floor, the defect in the construction, the defect in the construction of the second floor of the fourth floor of the Plaintiff church, the defect in the installation of the second unit of the two unit of the main air conditioner, and the defect in the installation of the second unit of the main air conditioner, the defect in the construction following reconstruction shall be paid KRW 55,780,000.

2. The Plaintiff, based on the premise that the contract with the Defendant was concluded with respect to the instant construction, may claim compensation for damages, namely, the following circumstances revealed through the entry of the evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) the ordinary contractor receives the construction cost from the contractor in accordance with the degree of the progress of the construction work and pays the materials cost, personnel expenses, etc. necessary for the construction work. According to the disbursement resolution (Evidence No. 1) prepared by the Plaintiff church, the Plaintiff church does not have a large number of times the materials cost and human expenses are paid directly to the Defendant while carrying out the instant construction work, and (ii) according to the above disbursement resolution, the Plaintiff church stated that the Defendant church paid 33-day personnel expenses (=2,00,000 won per day x 33 days) to the Defendant, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the testimony by the witness No. 6 and No. 8 and the testimony by the witness C was concluded with respect to the instant construction work between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion does not have any further reason as to the amount of damages.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.