1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserts that “the Plaintiff completed the construction work upon request from the Defendant from May 2010 to March 201, 201,” and that “the construction work amount of KRW 77,000,000 on December 31, 2010 (i.e., KRW 40,000,000 on December 31, 201) out of KRW 38,000,000 on March 31, 201, remains as the proceeds of attempted construction work.” However, the Defendant is deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable to pay the construction cost to the plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price as to the Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription constitutes a claim for the construction work of a contracted party under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and the period of extinctive prescription

Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act provides that “a claim concerning the construction work of a person who has contracted” as a claim required for the short-term extinctive prescription of three years. Even if a party asserts that a claim concerning construction work is a claim based on an agreement, the application of Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act concerning the short-term extinctive prescription cannot be excluded unless the nature

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da17185 Decided October 14, 1994). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, it is reasonable to deem that the final payment period of the construction cost claim was around March 31, 201.

The Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit is apparent to have been filed on December 13, 2019, which was three years after the filing of the instant lawsuit. As such, the said claim for construction price had already expired before the filing of the instant lawsuit.

As such, the defendant's argument is reasonable.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant renounced the prescription benefits by preparing a certificate of confirmation that he/she would repay the said construction cost on June 14, 2011, but in light of the fact that the statute of limitations has not yet expired at the time of June 14, 2011 of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is only written evidence No. 3.