1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the cost of supplementary participation.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for E (hereinafter “instant construction”) for KRW 97,507,676, and completed the said construction.

B. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 29.5 million as a construction price from the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) who is F operator, for the said construction price.

C. On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 68,07,676 (i.e., KRW 97,507,676 - 29,500,000, which remains with the Defendant (i.e., the value-added tax separately). The Plaintiff first received KRW 30 million from the Defendant, and the remainder KRW 25 million was paid at the time of deposit of money from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

However, the Plaintiff received KRW 30 million from the Defendant on the date of the above agreement, and again sent KRW 10 million from the president of H on the part of the Defendant, and then sent KRW 10 million to the above H.

E. Since the Defendant did not pay money in violation of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remaining amount of KRW 35 million under the said agreement (i.e., KRW 5 million - KRW 20 million) and the amount of KRW 18,007,676 plus value-added tax of KRW 53,007,676, which was reduced at the time of the said agreement, 48,507,676 and damages for delay calculated by subtracting value-added tax of KRW 5 million.

2. Determination

A. First, considering whether a contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 12, G awarded a contract for the instant construction work to the Defendant, and the Defendant further subcontracted part of the construction work to the intervenors, and the Intervenor re-subcontracted part of the construction work to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Defendant is a party to the contract that the Plaintiff entered into with the Plaintiff is