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

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to enter into a contract for construction works with A, a total of KRW 297,504,554, B, B, 63,987,362 (value-added tax, industrial accident insurance premium, and industrial accident insurance premium).

On September 2015, the Plaintiff suspended construction upon the request of the Defendant to suspend construction due to the absence of construction cost from the Defendant on the grounds of mid-2015, the Plaintiff completed the remaining construction, excluding 49,271,000 won, electrical construction (which is equivalent to KRW 44,060,150), toilet work (which is equivalent to KRW 3,00,000), toilet work (which is equivalent to KRW 290,000), boiler work (which is equivalent to KRW 1,620,000), and boiler work (which is equivalent to KRW 1,620,000).

B. The Plaintiff’s construction cost to be paid from the Defendant is KRW 98,241,150 (29,271,000,060, 150, 360,000, 263,158,850, and value-added tax 263,158,850, and 289,474,735 (263,158,850, 26,315,850), among the total construction cost that the Plaintiff had not been paid at KRW 361,40,00,00, and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 89,474,735,735 (26,315,850), from among the total construction cost that had not been paid at KRW 361,40,00,000, to the remainder of the total construction cost that had not been paid by the Defendant, and damages for delay by 15% per annum from the day of the delivery of the complaint in this case.

2. As to the fact that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction of the instant factory extension from the Defendant on July 28, 2015, the evidence No. 1 (contract) corresponding thereto does not have any evidence to acknowledge it differently without being employed in light of the witness B’s testimony. Rather, according to the entries in No. 1 and witness B’s testimony, B subcontracted the instant factory extension work and civil engineering work from the Defendant on July 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff by being awarded a contract for the instant factory extension work and civil engineering work with the Defendant on July 28, 2015, B decided to borrow the Plaintiff’s license since there was no comprehensive construction license when concluding the construction contract with the Defendant on July 28, 2015, B did not have any construction license between the Defendant and the Plaintiff when concluding the construction contract with the Defendant on July 28, 2015.