1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. A. Around April 17, 2016, the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) concluded a contract with the Defendant for construction work of “C-family house construction work” on the land of 200 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant construction work”) at KRW 345,00,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”); and (b) paid the Defendant KRW 164,50,000, total sum of the down payment and the construction cost for the instant construction contract.

However, the Defendant failed to complete the instant construction by August 30, 2016, which was the completion date, and suspended the construction around October 9 of the same year.

Accordingly, while performing the construction inevitably interrupted, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 160,683,070, including the water supply construction cost and the cost of windows, and KRW 145,250,070 with the internal finishing construction cost (= KRW 164,50,683,070, KRW 165,2500) and paid a total of KRW 165,43,070, and paid a total of KRW 1645,50,683,070 with the cost of interior finish construction (= KRW 165,250,000), thereby exceeding 125,43,070 for the construction cost of the instant construction contract (=470,43,070, KRW 345,000).

Considering this, the construction cost of the construction work performed by the defendant until the discontinuance of the construction work is equivalent to KRW 39,066,930 (=164,50,000 - KRW 125,43,070).

Since then, the Plaintiff rescinded the contract by means of the content certification as of January 13, 2017 or the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s intent to cancel the contract of this case, the Defendant, as a contracting party to the construction contract of this case, lent the name of the contractor to D even if it was the contracting party to the construction contract

Even if the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is the nominal holder, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the excess construction cost of KRW 125,43,070 (=the construction cost of KRW 164,50,000 - the construction cost of KRW 39,06,930) and damages for delay paid to the Plaintiff for restitution of unjust enrichment in accordance with the cancellation of the contract.

B. The defendant's arguments D contracted the construction of this case from the plaintiff, and the defendant requires a comprehensive construction license.