1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The date of commencement of the background leading to the instant dispute: on May 25, 2012: The contract amount on September 30, 2012: 24,750,000 won: 20% (including value-added tax): The contract amount: 30% (after the completion of the relevant construction work) of the contract amount: KRW 30,950,000 for the second 15% (after the completion of the relevant construction work) of the second 36,70,000 for the third 25% (after the completion of the relevant construction work) of the second 36,70,000 for the second 36,70,000 for the second 25% (after the completion of the relevant construction work): 20% (within 15 days after the completion of the construction work)

A. With respect to the construction of a new urban-type residential house B (hereinafter “instant building”) in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction”), the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the contractor, signed on May 20, 2012, a written contract (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant as the contractor and the Plaintiff as the contractor, and signed on May 20, 2012.

B. From July 6, 2012 to November 14, 2012, the Defendant remitted total of KRW 126,235,00 to the Plaintiff.

C. The instant construction was completed around December 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the instant construction project with the same content as the instant contract form, and performed the instant construction project.

The Defendant paid KRW 126,235,00 among the construction costs under the instant contract, and did not pay KRW 118,515,000 yet.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 118,514,90 and delay damages therefor.

B. Defendant 1 entered into a contract with C on the instant construction project, and did not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff.

C Since there was no license for the construction of multi-family housing, the construction was conducted by lending the name of the plaintiff, and the contract of this case was only made in a false manner to make the appearance of the plaintiff like the contractor.