1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant completed the construction of the building of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground C (hereinafter "the construction of this case") by being awarded a contract with the defendant, and that the defendant did not pay 120,000,000,000 won out of the construction cost, including design cost, urban gas admission cost, electricity and water supply cost, and balcony expansion cost, even though he obtained approval from the competent authority on March 17, 2005 and delivered the above building to the defendant, the defendant did not pay 50,000,000 won out of the construction cost. The plaintiff sought payment of 20,000,100 won, which is part of the unpaid construction cost, etc.

As to this, the defendant paid the construction cost to the plaintiff upon the completion of the instant construction work. Some of the construction cost was paid directly to the plaintiff's subcontractor under consultation with the plaintiff and completed the settlement, and even if the unpaid construction cost claims remain, the above claim for the construction cost is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years. The plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted as long as the lawsuit of this case was filed more than three years after the completion date of the said construction work.

2. In light of the determination, there is no evidence to prove the existence of a claim for the construction cost that the Plaintiff had not received from the Defendant, and even if the above claim for the construction cost exists, the above claim for the construction cost falls under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act as “claim for construction work of the contractor, news articles, and other persons engaged in the design or supervision of the construction work.” It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost as above has arrived at the due date from the day following March 17, 2005 when the Plaintiff completed the instant construction and obtained approval for use. Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost was filed on March 12, 2015, which was later than three years after the said lawsuit was filed, the above claim for the construction cost has already expired before the instant lawsuit