1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 30,500,000 out of the construction price, even though the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the Cheongju-si B or C Officetel construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) and completed the construction work under the name of the Cheongju-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Maju-si”).

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is the non-party company that entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is merely the contractor of the non-party company. Although the non-party company failed to complete the instant construction, the Defendant paid the non-party company the amount exceeding the construction cost for the part of the contract

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the plaintiff, on July 3, 2014, intended to supply all human resources used for the instant construction between the non-party company and the non-party company, and agreed to use the non-party company's name, and the plaintiff, on October 31, 2014 and on September 26, 2014, received directly from the defendant in relation to the instant construction.

However, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of pleadings to the whole purport of pleadings. In other words, on June 25, 2014, the defendant entered into a subcontract for construction works with the construction cost of KRW 110 million in terms of external construction works among the new construction works of Heung-gu Office Officetel in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, and on June 25, 2014, a subcontract for construction works with the construction cost of KRW 225 million in terms of external construction works. The other party to the contract was the non-party company, and the deposit of the plaintiff's claim that the payment was made for the construction works in this case, which is most deposited in the name of the non-party company, not the defendant, and on the construction price in this case.