1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a corporation that operates construction business, stone construction business, etc., and the defendant is a corporation that operates construction business, such as civil engineering and construction business.

B. On May 31, 2016, the Defendant: (a) determined the construction period from June 10, 2016 to December 20, 2016; (b) the Evalescent Hospital Extension Corporation located in Jeonsung-gun, and six parcels of land (hereinafter “instant Corporation”); and (c) received a contract from a medical corporation C by setting the contract amount of KRW 6,50,000,000.

C. From June 10, 2016 to July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff’s representative director F remitted KRW 43,000,000 to the G and G H’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2, Eul No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant for construction period of interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works from June 10, 2016 to December 20, 2016; the contract amount of KRW 1,364,00,000; and the Defendant’s director G by remitting KRW 43,00,000 as the initial construction cost to the Defendant’s director G as the construction cost. As such, the Defendant ought to pay the said loans of KRW 43,00,000 and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff’s representative director F remitted 43,00,000 won to G and H as seen earlier, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that G is a director or an agent of the Defendant. Even if G concluded a contract with the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s delegation, even if G concluded a contract with the Plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s representative director remitted money to G and H immediately transferred money to G and H by the Plaintiff’s representative director in light of the Plaintiff’s certificate Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the result of the Plaintiff’s extension of financial transaction information meeting with the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.