1. The plaintiff's primary defendant and the conjunctive defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who produces and installs the automatic door, entrance, etc. with the trade name of “D,” and the primary Defendant is a company that aims at the manufacture and installation of electronic parts (CCTV) and automatic door, and the primary Defendant was registered as a director of the primary Defendant from October 14, 2016 to February 8, 2018.

B. The F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) that had constructed part of the Incidental E Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) ordered the conjunctive Defendant to manufacture and install 48 places of the instant apartment.

(The Automatic Production and Installation Work shall be hereinafter referred to as the "Automatic Submission Work").

The Plaintiff performed part of the instant automatic text work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, witness G testimony, each fact inquiry result against F Co., Ltd. of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant automatic text work was completed upon receiving an order from the primary Defendant, but the Plaintiff did not receive construction payment of KRW 73,287,500 from the primary Defendant.

Therefore, the primary defendant is liable to pay the above construction cost and damages for delay to the plaintiff. If the primary defendant's obligation to pay the construction cost is not recognized, the primary defendant shall be liable.

3. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the claim against the primary defendant, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and each fact-finding results and the whole purport of pleadings against F Co., Ltd. of this court. In other words, ① the plaintiff and the primary defendant traded several times before and after the existence of the instant automatic text work, and other trades were written in the Plaintiff’s transaction details and tax invoices were issued, but there was no specification of transactions for the instant automatic text work.