1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the claim for refund of the deposit used for the construction license

A. On January 24, 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 on the condition that the Defendant borrowed a construction license from the Defendant who manufactured and sold building materials, and engaged in the work of construction for windows, etc., and sought the return thereof.

B. According to the witness C’s testimony, the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed and used the construction license from the Defendant from around 2004 is recognized.

However, according to witness C and D's testimony, the defendant's representative director C stated that the defendant did not have received a security deposit while lending a construction license to the plaintiff, and that D working for the defendant company was aware that the plaintiff had received a security deposit while lending the construction license to the defendant, etc. In light of the above, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid a security deposit of KRW 20,000,000 as a result of borrowing the construction license from the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and therefore, the plaintiff's above claim is groundless.

2. Determination on the claim for refund of the subrogated payment for the construction price

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around July 2007, the Defendant awarded a contract for the construction site of an apartment in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, for the construction site of an apartment, and subcontracted the construction of an apartment building to a F Company that installs a window strawing product introduced by the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff. 2) However, the Defendant did not pay the F Company KRW 15,000,000 out of the subcontract price of the window strawing product, and the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, introduced the F Company, paid KRW 15,00,000 on behalf of the Defendant.

3 The plaintiff 15,00,000 won, which was subrogated to the defendant, has been placed in the form of a security deposit borrowed from a construction license. The plaintiff 15,00,000 won, which was subrogated to the defendant, is claimed against the defendant.

B. According to the testimony of the witness C, the defendant's construction of apartment units in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City from E company around 2007.