1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

The EXE Co., Ltd. contract for the Defendant of AS Construction Co., Ltd. was awarded a contract for construction of a new driving range between B and B on the surface of six parcels of land to AS Construction Co., Ltd.

On March 9, 2011, AS Construction Co., Ltd. subcontracted the steel frame construction to the Defendant at the price of KRW 620,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) among the said new construction works.

The items of “1....... steel project” in the construction specifications prepared at the time include “name”: “stamping red with a melting agents colored in the upper part of the melting agents (i.e., red in a pole). The size: Method of painting work in which the shamp presse spacks cover in a sealed and uniform manner, and tamping with paints by enjoying oars. The type 2 “one time 2” and “one time : coloring or a glue color painting coloring in the upper part of the melting agents for the scenic view of the melting agents: 9,413 square meters, and the amount of each type of work is KRW 16,943,400, and the amount of the melting type of work as KRW 23,530,500.

Around July 2011, the Defendant re-subcontracted the Plaintiff, etc. to E, the representative of D, for the melting construction work, re-subcontracted to KRW 23,523,00 for the melting type and the combination type of melting type of melting construction. Accordingly, E re-subcontracted the melting type of melting type and the combination type of melting type of melting type.

The defendant sing up the surface of materials with fireproof performance in order to fireproof the columns, beams, etc. of the steel structure for 's shot beam light' from N. S. construction with shot beam lines;

B. At the time of the request for sprinking operations, around July 201, the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the Plaintiff with fireproof clothes covering operations at KRW 9,500,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the “sprinking portion in the H beam beam.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff did so.

The defendant requested L.S. Construction to L.S. L.T. L. O.T. L. O.T. L. O.T.T. for L. T.T. L. O.T.T.