1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person engaged in the construction business with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is the owner of the officetel building located in "Yedong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City" D (hereinafter "the building of this case").

B. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply and demand construction works for remodeling the outer walls, interior decorations, etc. of the instant building by setting the construction cost of KRW 210 million and the construction period from January 25, 2013 to April 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On April 11, 2013, on the instant building, a completion inspection of fire-fighting systems was conducted on April 11, 201 and approval for use was granted on April 29, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10, 11, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the construction of the instant building was completed according to the instant contract, and the actual construction cost is stated in the purport of the claim, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost equivalent to the actual construction cost

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant contract concluded on January 25, 2013 with the Plaintiff does not actually aim at the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant building, but for the Defendant’s financing of money through the Plaintiff, and the Defendant prepared together with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on February 13, 2013 to invalidate the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even though they were to borrow money from a third party. As such, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost under the instant contract. (2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the construction works entered into in the instant contract were mostly performed by the third party, and thus, the Plaintiff was already performed by the third party.