1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the owner of building C and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”) at the time of the Government.

B. The instant building began with the New Construction around February 20, 2010, and the said C was approved for use on October 25, 2010, and D on October 15, 2010.

C. The Plaintiff concluded a contract for the electrical construction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”) at KRW 140,300,000, and completed the construction work.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s husband B did not receive KRW 87,940,000 out of the price of the instant electrical construction, and filed a lawsuit claiming construction cost as Seoul Central District Court 201Da334045.

On March 21, 2012, the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 87,940,000 won and 20% interest per annum from January 22, 2012 to the day of full payment” and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground of claim

A. Since the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to do the instant electrical construction with her husband B, the Defendant also has a duty to pay the construction cost jointly with B as a party to the instant electrical construction contract.

B. Preliminaryly, the above B concluded the electrical construction contract of this case as the representative of the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost.

C. The Plaintiff received only KRW 52,360,00 from the Defendant as the price for the instant electrical construction, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 87,940,00 to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant is a party to the instant electrical construction contract or not is the owner of the instant building. The mere fact that the Defendant directly paid the instant electrical construction price to the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize as a party to the contract.

In addition, B is the defendant's representative.