1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Around July 2013, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was completed upon request from C, a president of the Group B, of Gyeonggi-gu, and seven construction works attached to the electric meters on seven lots of land, and received payment from C in full from C for the construction cost of KRW 26,869,50.

After that, around October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff received an additional request from the foregoing C for the construction of four electric meters attached to the instant additional construction works on a parcel of land (hereinafter “instant additional construction works”). The Plaintiff completed the instant additional construction works equivalent to KRW 16,306,540 for the construction cost around December 5, 2013, but failed to receive the construction cost.

However, among the electric installations constructed through the instant additional construction, the applicant’s name is the defendant on the certificate of pre-use inspection issued by the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation with respect to the Gyeonggi-si F and the electric installations installed in G. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 8,153,270 for the total construction cost of the instant additional construction or for at least 16,306,540, or for at least two electric installations for which the certificate of pre-use inspection was issued by the applicant as the defendant.

2. On the other hand, even if following the plaintiff's assertion, the other party who entered into the instant additional construction contract with the plaintiff is not the defendant but C or B Group, and the defendant cannot be deemed to be liable to pay the construction cost of the instant additional construction just because the applicant's name is the defendant under the certificate of prior inspection of the use of electric installations installed by the instant additional construction work. No other evidence exists to deem that the defendant bears the defendant's obligation to pay the construction cost of the instant additional construction to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff'

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.