1. Ascertainment that the Plaintiff’s obligation for construction cost of KRW 100,000,000 against the Defendant does not exist.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On January 19, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for D Civil Works with C during the construction period from February 15, 2012 to June 15, 2012, with the total construction cost of KRW 250,000,000.

B. The Defendant filed a claim with the Plaintiff for KRW 100,100,000 as the remainder of the cost of the above civil works, and the Plaintiff did not pay it. At the construction site of this case, the Defendant installed a street screen stating “in the course of exercising the right of retention on the ground of the payment of construction costs

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff did not enter into a contract with the Defendant with respect to the instant construction project, and that the Defendant did not have entered into a subcontract with C, and that C does not have any construction cost to be paid to C any longer because it did not properly carry out the instant construction project, and that there is no obligation to pay the construction cost to the Defendant

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has made a claim first to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of proving and supporting the facts

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). The Defendant only submitted a written response demanding dismissal of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and did not assert any other arguments, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant had worked at the construction site of this case by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay the construction cost of KRW 100,000 to the Defendant.

As long as the defendant contests this, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, since he has a benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of the above obligation.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.