1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A and B, as married couple, decided to construct the Busan Suwon-gu C building.

D as a father of A, he has overall control over all the affairs from the conclusion of the contract to the supervision of the progress of the construction work in connection with the construction work on behalf of A and B, the owner of the building (hereinafter referred to as "new construction work in this case").

B. On October 21, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with D representing A and B to receive the instant new construction works (hereinafter “new construction contract”).

C. On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay sewage to the instant new construction cost of KRW 66 million (including value-added tax) among the instant new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”). D. The Plaintiff concluded a contract to pay sewage to the Defendant and the instant new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

On May 11, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 33 million to the Plaintiff as the price for the instant construction project.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded the instant construction contract and executed it from June 17, 2016 to June 17, 2016, and the term height ratio reaches 98-9%.

When the plaintiff works only to the extent of a day, the defendant closed the entrance of the construction site due to disputes with the project owner, and the plaintiff could not complete the work.

In concluding the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to pay the progress payment once a month, but paid only KRW 33 million out of the construction cost of KRW 66 million.

Considering that the Defendant has already received more than 80% of the construction cost from the owner, the Defendant cannot reject the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost due to the conflict between the owner and the construction cost.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the Plaintiff KRW 33 million.

3. In light of the facts delineated below, the Plaintiff’s balance of construction cost 33 million won, which the Plaintiff seeks, solely based on the statement in Gap evidence 2.