1. The defendant's Daejeon District Court's Daejeon District Court's 2020 tea 2371 construction waste disposal case against the plaintiff.

(b) the facts of the basis;

A. On May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement with D who operates a construction business under the trade name called “C” with respect to the removal of obstacles (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D entered into an entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) with respect to construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal services regarding the instant construction project by setting the service cost as follows; and the Plaintiff and C as the trustor and the consignee (collecter and the consignee) respectively.

The unit cost per kind of waste (Quantities* unit cost) disposal method, disposal cost, non-waste concrete large 190,000 140,000 230,000 interim disposal (breaking, crushing) mixture of construction waste capacity 15,000 45,000 50,000

C. On May 26, 2016, the Defendant collected, transported, and disposed of waste 389.2 tons (waste concrete 370.6 tons, mixed construction pages 18.6 tons). On June 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a tax invoice for KRW 10,373,000 for waste disposal expenses under the instant consignment contract.

On September 12, 2016, the Defendant sent the content-certified mail seeking payment of KRW 10,373,000 to the Plaintiff.

E. On April 3, 2020, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 10,373,000 for waste disposal expenses under the instant consignment contract and delayed payment damages therefor, and received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on April 9, 2020 as Daejeon District Court Branch Branch 2020 teab2371, and the instant payment order was finalized on May 2, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, Eul's 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant do not have a direct contractual relationship.

In addition, in the case of this case, Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.