1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff is a company specializing in the wholesale business, etc. of electric lamps, lamps, and lighting equipment, without a communications license, and Korea Ethsia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Ethsia”).

around August 2014, the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Corporation”) from the Defendant

) The Plaintiff contracted the instant construction, even if the Plaintiff was not directly supplied the sewage (it was not directly supplied by the Plaintiff, Korea Es.I. demanded the Plaintiff to do so, and the Defendant also accepted the instant construction.

(2) Around May 2016, the Plaintiff discontinued the instant construction project while completing the overall process of 80%. During that period, the Plaintiff spent KRW 340,092,222 with labor costs, etc. In the process of performing the instant construction project. The Defendant did not pay only KRW 219,40,00 with materials and labor costs and pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 120,692,222 (=340,092, 222 - 219,40,000). Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 120,692,222 and delay damages.

B. The Defendant merely subcontracted the instant construction work to Hansung A and did not subcontract it to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 11-1-7 (each factual confirmation) is insufficient to recognize that the defendant subcontracted the construction work of this case to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 9, and 10, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction work to Korea Es.S.A. on or around June 2016, the Defendant agreed to terminate the subcontract by receiving the progress payment, etc. paid by Korea Es.A. from Korea Es.A. on or around June 2016.

B. In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff actually performed the instant construction work under the direction of the Korea Es.A. and the Defendant was aware of it, the Defendant, who was the contracting party, was not Korea Es.A.