1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2010, the date when the Plaintiff started construction work A’s ground B (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from the Defendant on April 6, 2010: The date of completion of the completion of the construction work: April 6, 2010; the date of completion of the construction work; the cost of construction: KRW 420 million; the rate of compensation for delay: 1/100 (annual 36.5%); however, the Plaintiff concluded a contract under which the Plaintiff received a payment of the total construction cost at KRW 430,00,000, by modifying the design to add two rooms to the second floor during the construction work.

B. The Plaintiff completed September 20, 2010 and delivered new buildings to the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the instant construction cost of KRW 170 million on April 7, 2010, KRW 170 million on May 28, 2010, KRW 100 million on August 6, 2010, KRW 40 million on August 6, 2010, KRW 35 million on September 20, 2010, respectively, to D designated by C, who comprehensively managed the instant construction work, and paid KRW 7 million on May 28, 2010, KRW 43 million on May 28, 2010, KRW 10 million on August 5, 2010, and KRW 20 million on August 13, 2010, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5-1 to 4, 6-1, 2, 13, Eul evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2, 3 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had not been paid KRW 43 million out of the construction price of this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant had a claim for the remainder of the construction price of this case and damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum among the damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant asserts that if the construction price paid to C and D is combined, the construction price of this case was paid to the plaintiff within the full payment date, and that the plaintiff's claim for the construction price of this case was extinguished by prescription.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction payment of this case ought to be subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of Article 163 subparag. 3-3 of the Civil Act, so the statute of limitations ought to be deemed to run from September 20, 2010, when the completion of the construction of this case was completed.

However, this lawsuit is brought.