1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 21, 201, a corporation established on January 21, 201 for the purpose of electrical construction business, C (the representative D; hereinafter “C”) contracted part of the fire-fighting system installation works, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction works of the Yancheon-gu E located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant construction”) for KRW 195,000,000 from Taeho Comprehensive Construction, thereby executing the construction from December 23, 2013 to February 28, 2014.

나. 그런데, 2014. 2. 7. 10:43경 이 사건 공사 현장에서 C 소속 근로자인 G(37세)은 약 3미터 높이의 샌드위치 패널로 되어 있는 컨트롤룸 지붕에 올라가 소방감지기 설치 작업을 하다가, 위 천장 패널이 작업자들의 하중을 못 이겨 무너지면서 바닥으로 추락하여 약 10주간의 치료를 요하는 척추 골절상 등을 입었다

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). (Reasons for recognition: Statement No. 1 of No. B and the purport of the whole pleadings are complied with.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the lawsuit and the Defendant agreed upon the agreement that “if the Plaintiff incurred the instant construction work with human resources, materials, and expenses, the Defendant shall settle down the construction cost and make a cycle after the completion of construction (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Since the instant construction work is completed, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim corresponding to the unpaid portion of total construction cost of KRW 59,466,50, which the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff pursuant to the said agreement.

B. As to the subject of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff asserted the aforementioned assertion on the premise that he/she concluded the instant agreement with the Defendant (B Co., Ltd.). However, as seen in the above basic facts that the representative director D of the Defendant Co., Ltd., who is not the Defendant, was working as the representative director, and that the Plaintiff himself/herself concluded the instant agreement with the said D Co., Ltd., and it is clear that the said agreement was concluded with the Defendant, not with the Defendant, and that it was concluded with the said D Co., Ltd.. on April 6,