1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who performs unsatisfy works in the construction site along with the human body, and the defendant is a company with the purpose of general construction business and housing construction business.

B. Around August 2016, the Defendant awarded a contract to C with the construction cost of KRW 70,000,000 among the construction works in the officetel in Namyang-si, the construction cost of which was set at KRW 51,00,000,00, and C awarded a contract to the Plaintiff with the portion of the construction works in the above office building cost of KRW 51,00,000.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) the subcontracted construction work is C.

On October 2016, the Plaintiff temporarily suspended the instant construction work because it was not paid the construction cost by C around the end of October, 2016, but completed the instant construction work around the end of November 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On October 2016, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion discontinued construction work, as it did not receive the price of the instant construction work from C.

At that time, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to complete the instant construction work by telephoneing the construction cost, and the Plaintiff agreed to do so and completed the instant construction work.

The Plaintiff did not receive the remaining payment of KRW 27,300,000,000 for the instant construction project. The Defendant’s above request concurrently accepts the Defendant’s obligation to pay the construction price to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction price and the damages for delay.

3. In full view of the purport of evidence No. 4 in the judgment of the court below, it can be acknowledged that E, the representative of the defendant, called the plaintiff around November 4, 2016, made a telephone call to the plaintiff for the completion of the instant construction work, but the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of the instant case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 4-1, 4.