1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was awarded a contract on October 2, 2014 with the amount of KRW 1,753,987,450 as total amount and the date of completion of the Dental Maintenance Work at Jung-Eup.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). (b)

C On March 7, 2014, between E and F (hereinafter referred to as “E, etc.”) entered into a subcontract with the term of KRW 166,00,000 for the construction cost of the instant construction and the term of construction from March 13, 2014 to May 30, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”). (c)

On October 21, 2014, the Si of Jung-Eup terminated the instant contract due to the impossibility of performing the contract due to C’s circumstances, and C’s waiver of the contract for construction.

On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 70 million from C among the damage claims against the Defendant, and C notified the Defendant of the assignment of the above claim on January 16, 2015, and around that time, the notification was delivered to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a inside director of C and a mandatary entrusted with the instant contract construction by C, and the Defendant breached the duty of due care of the relevant statutes and good manager by making a false report to C as the constructor licensed to C with the knowledge of the fact that E, etc. is not a constructor who has registered the type of business with respect to reinforced concrete construction.

In addition, in the process of performing the instant contracted construction, the Defendant had delayed construction due to lack of execution capacity, etc., and had taken appropriate measures and reported that fact to the mandator, the delegating person C did not take appropriate measures, and did not report it to C properly. The Defendant breached the duty of care as a mandatory, such as having received return of KRW 15 million out of the construction cost paid to E with G as the site manager, who was the site manager, and using it for personal use.