1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, newly constructed a building on the ground of the land in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant, and was paid the construction cost incurred in the said new construction by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as a executor, suspended the construction work under the status of approximately 80% while the construction work was underway from July 2005 to August 2005 when Nonparty D, who was a director, was performing the said construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

The Plaintiff spent a total of KRW 278,256,370 for the above construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 5-1, 3, 6, 7-2, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Corporation was implemented as part of the implementation of the partnership agreement concluded by the Plaintiff and the Defendant around August 2004, and the above partnership agreement is established with the Defendant’s name as part of the execution of the partnership agreement. The land of the building of this case, E, F, C (the site of the building of this case), G, and H lot is developed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant pays 50% of the disposal price after development to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff at least 278,256,370 won for construction expenses paid by the plaintiff as construction expenses, less 44,200,056,370 won which the defendant already paid as construction expenses, and damages for delay.

B. First of all, we examine whether the agreement on the partnership business as alleged by the Plaintiff was established, and evidence No. 2 (the consulting contract) presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant was printed, and that there was no signature or seal, and thus, the intent was reached with respect to the partnership business agreement asserted by the Plaintiff. The same applies to the examination of the entries in the evidence No. 20 to No. 22, 26, and 27, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the establishment of a partnership agreement.