1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant Company on the following terms: (a) the Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu G Hotel Remodeling Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The name of the construction: The contract amount of the G hotel construction project: the date of commencement of the construction project of KRW 430 million (excluding value-added tax): March 24, 2016: the date of completion: April 30, 2016.

The plaintiff completed the construction work in accordance with the construction contract of this case, and the construction amount was increased by KRW 27,075,00 in the process.

C. From April 8, 2016 to January 18, 2017, the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff KRW 350,180,000 as the instant construction cost.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Of the instant construction cost, the unpaid amount is KRW 148,275,00 [=5,000 + KRW 473,000,000 + KRW 27,075,000] - The Defendant, who is the representative director of the Defendant Company, agreed to recognize and repay the above construction cost liability, and thus, the Defendant shall pay the said amount to the Plaintiff.

B. Even if not, in the case of the defendant company, the defendant company has the external form of a legal entity, but is merely an individual company of the defendant in substance, it should be deemed that the defendant company as well as its person behind the company can seek the payment of the construction price of this case.

The Plaintiff, at the trial of the first instance on January 6, 2020, deposited the Defendant from the Defendant’s corporate account to the Defendant’s individual account via a preparatory document, is a loan, and thus, the Plaintiff, a creditor of the Defendant Company, additionally asserted the conjunctive cause of claim to the effect that the Plaintiff, a creditor of the Defendant Company, is acting in subrogation of the Defendant Company’s claim for the above loan against the Defendant, but this constitutes a case where the litigation procedures are substantially delayed, and thus, it was rejected

Therefore, it is therefore.