1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 14, 2014, Defendant A received a contract for D Sewerage Works from the Plaintiff, and until December 31, 2014, Defendant A and Defendant B entered into a construction project with the said construction site (hereinafter “D construction site”).

B. At the time of entering into the initial contract, Defendant A and the Plaintiff entered into a contract in the form of double work that pays the construction cost according to the work performance on the unit price presented by Defendant A, but the content of the contract was modified from July 2014 to directly pay the construction cost after settling accounts at the construction site at each month from July 2014.

C. In addition, around February 1, 2015, Defendant A received a supply of the E-rural village sewerage construction from the Plaintiff and continued construction until May 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] 1, 5, 6, 7, 15 evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 15 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim for return of labor cost

A. Defendant C’s assertion is liable to compensate for the amount equivalent to the above amount as damages for tort, since Defendant C conspireds with the Defendants that Defendant C provided labor as a daily worker, as if he provided labor as a daily worker, by deceiving the Plaintiff, from July 2014 to December 2014, by double payment of labor cost of KRW 20,876,00.

B. In full view of the evidence employed prior to the determination, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of testimony and arguments by the witness F, the plaintiff changed the subcontract with Defendant A from July 2014 to the direct management of the work, and paid labor costs and equipment costs directly invested by the plaintiff to the Corporation. At the construction site at the time, the plaintiff leased dump trucks without a driver’s license to cover expenses, while driving the vehicle.