1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the construction cost of KRW 38 million and the construction cost of KRW 2 million that occurred in Seoul F. The judgment of the court of first instance accepted only the claim for the payment of the construction cost in Seoul F, and dismissed the claim for the payment of the construction cost at the time of Pakistan.

Since the plaintiff appealed only, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for the payment of the construction cost at the Pakistan.

2. Basic facts

A. On December 2015, the Defendant: (a) executed the new construction of a publicly notified tele-building on the land outside C and one parcel; (b) contracted the remainder construction of the said publicly notified tele-building to E at KRW 340,100,000 for the construction cost (including value-added tax).

B. On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff contracted from the field agent E of the D Co., Ltd. for the operation of the instant construction and the construction of the B-dong building (hereinafter “instant construction”) for KRW 170,500,000,000, and completed the relevant construction.

C. On February 6, 2017, the above public-private partnership building was approved on the part of the contractor as D Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant construction work was contracted to KRW 155 million by the field agent E of the D Co., Ltd., and E was suspended due to the suspension of the construction work, the Defendant, while ordering the Plaintiff to implement the remaining construction work, agreed to settle the construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff at KRW 86 million and pay it directly to the Plaintiff. On November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45 million and KRW 3 million on January 11, 2017.

As the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 38 million ( KRW 86 million-45 million).

B. First of all, the Defendant did not go through E and did not directly run the remaining construction work to the Plaintiff, the subcontractor.