1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, and 2-2 as to the cause of the claim (including the absence of dispute between the parties), the plaintiff was awarded a contract from the defendant for electrical construction among the new construction works of a child-care center A located in Sejong-si (hereinafter "the instant construction works") in the amount of KRW 33 million (including value added tax). The plaintiff can be acknowledged that the above construction works were completed on October 4, 2009 and obtained approval for the use of the racing on November 4, 2009. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction price of KRW 30 million and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, since D, the husband of the instant construction project, agreed to pay the instant construction cost directly to the Plaintiff, the Defendant does not have any obligation to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that C and D, the owner of the instant construction project, promised on September 30, 2009 that the owner of the instant construction project should dispose of the construction price of KRW 33 million in direct payment by the owner of the instant construction project, and that if there is any problem in the construction price that has been disposed of in direct payment, the owner of the instant construction project shall be jointly and severally liable by the owner of the instant construction project and D.

However, it is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the party that is indicated in the assumption of the obligation, and it is deemed that the acceptance of the obligation is made in respect of the assumption of the obligation, or if the overlapping underwriter is not clear (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228, Sept. 24, 2002). Accordingly, solely on the circumstance where C and D prepared and delivered the above undertaking, the Plaintiff is entitled to exempt the Defendant from the obligation to pay the construction price of this case only from C and D, with the intent to discharge the Defendant and to pay it only from C and D.