1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 27, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a golf practice range B located in the wife population B (hereinafter “instant construction”) with respect to the construction of a new construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) with the Defendant as to the construction cost of KRW 4 billion (including value-added tax) and the construction period from April 7, 2008 to December 31, 2008 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

The Plaintiff received KRW 2.37 billion from the Defendant as the name of the construction cost of the instant construction project.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Under the premise that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, the Plaintiff claimed payment of the construction cost of KRW 4,0770,000 under the instant construction contract to the Defendant as part of KRW 1,70,000,000, deducting the construction cost of KRW 2,3770,000,000, which was already paid, and the Defendant suspended the instant construction work, and paid all the construction cost equivalent to the interest rate at the time of suspension to the Plaintiff, and thus, no construction cost exists.

Therefore, according to the following circumstances as to whether the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on the total amount of the construction cost of the instant construction work with the Defendant as “user,” and in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work solely on the basis of the facts acknowledged in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s approval for the use of a driving range newly constructed by the instant construction work on October 16, 2008 under the name of the head of the Si/Gu of Si/Gu of Si/Gu of Young-si was stated as the contractor; (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff is deemed to have stated the approval for the use of a driving range newly constructed by the instant construction work as the contractor; and (c) on the other hand, the Plaintiff is deemed to have completed the instant construction.