1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was sub-subcontracted by the Defendant from the Defendant, and the Defendant re-subcontracted the dismantling work among the water and land transport facilities and dismantling work.

In other words, although the sub-subcontract was not prepared, it was performed to dismantle the construction under the direction and supervision of the defendant, the work report was made to the defendant with the work site, etc., and the re-subcontract was concluded implicitly by receiving part of the construction cost through the defendant's account managed

In addition, the defendant's employees C and D agreed to pay the construction price to the plaintiff.

In accordance with the above sub-subcontract, the Plaintiff performed and completed the dismantling work from May 14, 2015 to June 15, 2015.

However, the defendant does not pay only KRW 24,746,510 out of the total construction cost of KRW 114,252,980, and does not pay the remainder of KRW 89,506,470. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 89,506,470 and delay damages.

B. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) subcontracted installation and dismantling works to F, a specialized construction subcontractor on the trade name called E; (b) subcontracted installation and dismantling works to E; (c) re-subcontracted production, installation and dismantling works to ES Engineering Co., Ltd. on May 15, 2014; and (d) paid the full amount of the construction cost re-subcontracted to F and the said Company on June 15, 2014.

In other words, the defendant did not re-subcontract the dismantling construction as asserted by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and no construction contract was concluded with the plaintiff.

2. (1) Determination (1) The Plaintiff appears to have performed the dismantling of the Plaintiff’s assertion in full view of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 3 and the witness G’s testimony, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the re-subcontract was concluded even if it is implicitly between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the dismantling work.