1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers if they have a serial number) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

On October 14, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with an accelerator integrated construction company and each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) contracted by the said company (hereinafter “instant building”) to complete the structural construction by December 1, 2003 and receive KRW 1,517,945,00,000 among the new construction works for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Around March 19, 2003, the said new construction corporation was suspended under the condition that the Plaintiff performed the structural construction work even before the assembly of retaining walls with the second floor. Since around April 2003, the Defendant concluded a subcontract for the construction of the instant building with the Plaintiff with the same content as the existing subcontract that entered into with the Plaintiff, which entered into with the cell integrated construction corporation.

C. From April 7, 2003, the Plaintiff resumed construction and completed the structural construction of the instant building around July 28, 2003.

At the time, the instant building was completed and 80% of the roof construction, 65% of the external facility construction, 54% of the external stone construction, and 20% of the pipeline construction respectively.

On June 1, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant increased 1,602,117,200 won for the pelpel works. On February 13, 2007, the Defendant issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 1,600,000,000 out of the above pelpel works and delivered the payment date to the Plaintiff by April 30, 2008.

E. In the appellate trial of the instant building site, the Seoul High Court held that the first owner of the instant building site and the person to whom the right to share of the building site was transferred, and the Defendant held the ownership of the instant building between the Defendant, on June 25, 2009.