1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2013, the Defendant agreed to the effect that “The construction of a newly built multi-household house on the Jeju-gu D ground” is awarded KRW 476,00,000 as the construction price.”

B. From January 5, 2014, C, from January 5, 2014, the construction of the said multi-household house (hereinafter “instant construction”) was carried out under the name of the comprehensive construction company, and the same year.

8. 25. Completion of multi-household housing and obtaining approval for use;

The defendant for the same year

8. 27. The registration of preservation of ownership of the above multi-household housing has been completed.

C. The Plaintiff, etc. is a person who supplies construction materials, etc. to C or provides labor in connection with the instant construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, as the owner of the instant construction project, assigned C as the owner of the instant construction site and actually carried out the instant construction project, and the Plaintiff et al. participated in the instant construction project in trust with the Defendant’s ability to pay for construction materials and labor provided by the Plaintiff et al. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff et al. the price for the construction materials and labor provided by the Plaintiff et al. relating to the instant construction project.

B. Determination 1) There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant entered into a direct contract with the Plaintiff, etc. with the Plaintiff, received construction materials and labor, or promised to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff, etc. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premiseding that the Defendant is a party to the contract is without merit. Meanwhile, the fact that the construction cost of this case was 476,00,000, as seen earlier, is the fact that the Defendant’s assertion that the construction cost of this case was 476,000,000. Considering the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments and evidence