1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 1, 2011, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, a Ulsan-gun, under which 13,353 square meters of land were created as factory sites (hereinafter “instant civil works”).

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is the cancer project among the instant civil construction works and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant cancer project”).

(2) The Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 25 million, not later than April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded the contract for the contract of the instant cancer work with the Plaintiff for KRW 30 million, and the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 25 million, out of the construction cost of KRW 30 million from the Defendant. The Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff and the unpaid construction cost of KRW 25 million up to March 20, 2012 (B). Even if the Defendant, not the Defendant, but the Plaintiff without the authority, voluntarily concluded the contract for the instant cancer work with the Plaintiff without the authority, the Defendant indicated that the right of representation should be granted to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is liable to represent the Plaintiff (III. 2). As the Plaintiff subcontracted the instant cancer work to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, who is the subcontractor, under Article 14(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act or Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, is obligated to directly pay the price for the instant cancer work.

(No. (No. (4) The Plaintiff has a claim against C for the payment of the instant cancer construction work. To preserve the claim, the Plaintiff seeks payment from the Defendant of the amount equivalent to the claim of the price of the instant cancer construction work in subrogation of C.

No. b. (Notice)

Judgment

1. There is no evidence to prove that the stamp image attached to the defendant's name of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the plaintiff's 1, 3 is based on the seal of the defendant.

The plaintiff also recognized that the above seal is not the defendant, but E or C, and the above.