1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In 205, the Defendant received subsidies through a project to modernize high quality production facilities of the FTA Fund (hereinafter “instant project”) which is administered by the Spanch-gun as a farmer operating an orchard in the Gyeong Chang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “Seoul”) and decided to install the pipes for agricultural sources, aiding and abetting networks, and air-proof nets, etc. in the orchard (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. Around December 2005, the Defendant contracted the instant construction work to the Plaintiff in total at KRW 34,869,000, and the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work around December 2006.

C. Around December 8, 2006, the Defendant applied for the grant of a subsidy to Span Chang-gun and received a total of KRW 14,130,000 (= KRW 4,541,000) from Span Chang-gun around that time after obtaining confirmation from the Span Chang-gun Agricultural Technology Center that completed the business.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), the fact-finding results of this court's inquiry into agricultural technology center, the witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for construction cost

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 23,301,00,000, excluding the construction cost of KRW 11,568,00,000 (=34,869,000 - KRW 11,568,00) and damages for delay.

B. As to the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription has expired, and the plaintiff's claim for construction price has expired.

If the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost is not exercised within three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act as “claim for Works of the contractor,” the extinctive prescription expires. It is obvious that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on November 7, 2014, which was three years after the said lawsuit was filed, as seen earlier.

Therefore, the claim for the construction cost is filed in this case.