1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of machinery and equipment (hereinafter “instant 201 construction”) among the new construction works of Nam-si, Nam-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant 201 construction works”) from April 10, 2012 to September 30, 2012, with the construction cost of KRW 2,633,00,000, and from April 10, 2012 to September 30, 2012. ② On February 1, 2013, the construction of machinery and equipment (hereinafter “instant 207 construction”) among the new construction works of the above B B 207 construction works (hereinafter “instant 201 construction”). The construction of the instant 201 and 207 construction was completed after adding the construction work to the construction period of KRW 49 million,000,000, and from February 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.

However, the Defendant did not pay only KRW 630,000 for the construction price of the instant case 201 and paid only KRW 61,000 for the remainder of the construction price of KRW 20,000 for the instant case (= KRW 26,30,000 for the instant construction price of KRW 6,330,000 for the instant case - KRW 6,330,000 for the instant construction price of KRW 41,00 for the instant construction price of KRW 207 (= KRW 49,000,000 - KRW 8,000 for the aforementioned construction price). Accordingly, the Defendant sought payment for the unpaid construction price and damages for delay.

B. Around August 2012, Defendant merely awarded a contract for each of the instant construction works with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) and did not conclude a direct contract with the Plaintiff, and paid the construction price to the Nonparty Co., Ltd., the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the Plaintiff received each contract from the Defendant as the premise for the instant claim, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

According to each of the records, Gap evidence Nos. 2, and Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2, the plaintiff did each of the construction of this case, and the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff as the supplier or the defendant as to each of the construction of this case.

However, there are 1, 2 (each contract for construction work) of Gap evidence No. 1.