1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

After receiving a contract for the extension of a multi-purpose classroom and meal room from the office of education in Jeonnam-do, the Defendant subcontracted the construction of reinforced concrete among the extended construction work to the 525,834,000 won (including value-added tax) on November 11, 2014.

On April 14, 2015, Large-Scale Construction Co., Ltd. re-subcontracted the construction of steel structure included in the scope of the above reinforced concrete construction to the Plaintiff at KRW 69 million (value-added tax separate).

The Plaintiff started construction on April 14, 2015, and completed the steel structure construction on April 30, 2015.

Since then, the Modern Construction Co., Ltd. received the payment of the construction cost of reinforced concrete in accordance with the direct payment agreement between the defendant and the office of education of Jeonnam-do, and the payment was also included in the construction cost of steel structure made by the plaintiff.

Of the construction cost of steel structure, KRW 25,197,166 was directly paid to the material supplier, but the Plaintiff was not paid the remainder of the construction cost.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the construction cost of steel structure to the plaintiff since he is the defendant, since he was awarded a contract by the office of education of Jeonnam-do to extend the multi-purpose class and meal room of Gap, and he was awarded a subcontract in a lump sum. The steel structure construction work performed by the plaintiff was a process that cannot be deemed a large-scale corporation holding a license for reinforced concrete construction work, and the plaintiff was awarded a contract only with the large-scale building corporation, and the construction work of steel structure was completed in a lump sum subcontract relationship with the plaintiff, and the company actually subcontracted the construction of steel structure to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the first line of evidence, the first line of evidence, the statements in Gap evidence 2 to 11, the witness B's testimony, and the Jeonnam-do Office of Education of this Court.