1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On November 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to change the contract amount with the Defendant to KRW 2,273,297,979 with respect to the construction of the Kimhae-si apartment that was contracted by the Defendant, and thereafter completed the said new construction work.

At present, since the unpaid construction cost is KRW 60,000,000, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 60,000,000 and the delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that C had no comprehensive construction license, and the Plaintiff, who had a comprehensive construction title, lent to C the title of the contract for the new construction of B apartment.

Accordingly, the contract agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for the new apartment construction was prepared, and the construction cost related to the new apartment construction was settled in all.

Even if not,

However, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost of the apartment was extinguished by the lapse of the three-year statute of limitations from November 16, 2012, the date of registration for the preservation of B apartment, or from November 30, 2012, the date of completion under the contract.

2. Even if the Plaintiff assumes that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price exists, regardless of whether the Plaintiff lent the title under the contract for the new construction of B apartment, the claim for the construction price alleged by the Plaintiff constitutes “claim for the Construction Work of the contractor” under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act and thus, the short-term extinctive prescription for three years is applied.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be recognized that the Kimhae-si New Airport Corporation completed the construction on or around November 16, 2012. Since it is apparent in the record that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on March 3, 2017, which was more than three years after the expiration of the period, the claim for construction price by the plaintiff's assertion was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.