1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) on the part of the Defendant, the contractor, six (6) construction works, including new construction works; (b) but not limited to the instant construction works.

B. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice of KRW 8,800,000 to the Defendant on August 31, 2015, and KRW 16,500,000 to the Defendant on August 31, 2015, and the Defendant remitted each of the KRW 8,800,000 to the Plaintiff on September 7, 2015, and KRW 16,50,000 to the Plaintiff on September 25, 2015.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1- 4, and the ground for appeal

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff directly supplied sewage to the Defendant during the instant construction work and completed the construction work.

However, the Defendant paid only KRW 23,00,000 out of the total construction cost of KRW 77,440,000, and thus, it is necessary to pay the remainder construction cost of KRW 54,440,000 and delay damages.

B. The Defendant, not the Plaintiff, subcontracted to C (the name of the business registration of D, the actual operator, the husband of the instant construction work, to C (the husband of the instant construction work). The Plaintiff re-issued the said construction work from C.

The defendant's request for direct payment of the cost of re-supply from C is 1.B.

Since the money was remitted to the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

3. Determination

A. According to the result of the submission of the written evidence No. 2 and the written explanation of mineral description, the Defendant subcontracted several construction works to C, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 33,000,000 on the basis that the Plaintiff was supplied with D on 2015.

Therefore, as alleged by the Defendant, the possibility that the Plaintiff re-purchaseed the unclaimed construction work during the instant construction project from C cannot be ruled out.

B. If so, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly contracted the unclaimed construction work from the Defendant during the instant construction work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise.