1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On November 2012, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was paid only part of the instant construction cost by the Defendant, despite having been awarded a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction work with respect to the collective housing on the ground (second complex) outside and two parcels of land (second complex) in Jeonjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction work”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost payable to the Plaintiff KRW 50,181,600, which is not paid to the Plaintiff.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion ① The Corporation received a contract from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff borrowed only the name to C, and thus the Plaintiff cannot directly claim the construction cost of the instant case to the Defendant.

② Even if the Plaintiff is a contracting party to the instant construction project that the Defendant was awarded a contract from the Defendant, it shall be deemed that the Defendant paid the construction cost that the Defendant would have to pay to the Plaintiff directly to the employees of the instant construction project or construction business operators or to the Plaintiff as wages or material prices, etc. upon the Plaintiff’s request for direct payment of the instant construction project. As such, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost has ceased to exist. Even if such assertion is not acknowledged, ③ the Plaintiff was taken over the claim against the Plaintiff from the employees of the instant construction project or construction business operators, and the said creditors notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of the said claim. The Defendant set off the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction cost against the Plaintiff’s acquisition claim, but the Defendant’s claim for the construction payment to the Defendant is against the principle of trust and good faith.

2.