1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around October 2002, the Plaintiff contracted to perform landscaping construction works among D Child Care Center Construction Works located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul; and (b) around April 2010, the Plaintiff completed the landscaping construction works among D Child Care Center Construction Works located in the Dongjak-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City.

(2) The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 102,00,000 for each landscaping work (=7,000,000 won ② 25,000,000) and damages for delay.

2. Determination:

A. It is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract to the instant construction from the Defendant solely on the basis of each of the descriptions of lives, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[In addition, according to each description of evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2 (Written Estimate) of this case, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff prepared a written estimate in the name of E Co., Ltd. that was the representative director, and it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff, not the said E Co., Ltd., was directly awarded the said construction contract.]

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff assumed that the instant construction was awarded a contract from the Defendant, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff had completed the construction work equivalent to KRW 102,00,000, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price of this case is recognized, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price of this case expired by prescription, and thus, it will be considered as a family.

The Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost is “a claim against the contractor’s construction work,” and if it is not exercised for three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription expires. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the date of completion of the instant construction work is around October 2002 and around April 2010. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is filed three years after the lapse of the said three years thereafter.