1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant awarded a contract to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for construction of a new urban residential housing unit on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si D to KRW 830,000,000 for the construction cost.

B. On August 30, 2016, Nonparty Company awarded a subcontract to the Plaintiff for construction cost of KRW 126 million during the construction work.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Nonparty Company for the payment of the construction price under this Court Order 2017Da6653 and is currently pending in the said lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, testimony of witness E and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant, the owner of the right to claim the Plaintiff, promised to pay the construction cost in cash to the Plaintiff when completing the construction of underground, north and Dong-dong retaining walls, and underground ground-breaking (hereinafter “construction of the instant septic tank, etc.”) and the Plaintiff completed the said construction work.

This part of the Corporation is not included in the Aggregate Works subcontracted by the non-party company.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above construction cost of 33 million won to the plaintiff.

B. According to the witness E’s testimony, the Plaintiff is deemed to have performed construction work, such as the instant septic tank, but it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for construction work, such as the instant septic tank, only with the witness F’s testimony, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the facts and evidence acknowledged earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① There is no construction contract or any other disposition document between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

② In light of the fact that the Defendant, the owner of the building, was awarded a contract to the non-party company for the entire construction work, and that the said contract (Evidence B No. 3) seems to include the instant purification work, etc., the Defendant has no reason to conclude a contract for the construction work separately with the Plaintiff, the sub-beneficiary,