1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2014, the Defendant entered into a standard contract for private construction works with Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (limited to a company outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea) and on the ground of Gyeongdong-gun C (limited to the instant construction works) on the ground of Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-do, and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract with Nonparty Co., Ltd. for construction costs of KRW 40,500,000 during the said construction works and completed construction works.

B. On March 30, 2015, the non-party company entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on March 30, 2015, stating that “The Defendant agrees to pay the subcontract price directly to the Plaintiff under Article 43 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, Articles 15 and 16 of the Special Conditions of the Construction Contract, Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act

C. On April 1, 2015, the non-party company and the Defendant agreed to waive the construction in relation to the instant construction project on the following grounds: “Non-party company and the Defendant shall directly perform construction works and offset the amount of the non-execution construction and settle it after completion.”

On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written peremptory notice of performance of the obligation to pay KRW 40,500,000, out of the instant construction cost claim against the Defendant on March 30, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to a direct claim for subcontract price based on the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, the Plaintiff primarily requests the Defendant to pay the subcontract price pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act. In light of whether there was an agreement on the direct payment of subcontract price between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the non-party company, the witness E is between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the non