1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C University Dormitory and Engineering Type Lease/Fire Fighting Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) (hereinafter “B, etc.”) to accept a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 1,070,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) among the construction works for lease-transfer-lease projects (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. However, the supervisory body pointed out that there was no license for telecommunications construction works in relation to the portion of the instant construction works (hereinafter “instant telecommunications construction works”), and the Plaintiff entered into a modified contract with B, etc. on January 31, 2012 to accept a subcontract for the instant telecommunications construction works with the Defendant and B, etc. (from February 23, 2012 to July 27, 2012). In relation to the instant telecommunications construction works, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement with the Defendant and B, etc. (from February 23, 2012 to July 27, 2012).

C. On the other hand, from February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff started installing pipes/lines among the instant communications corporations from around February 23, 2012, and continued to progress the instant communications corporation after being subcontracted by B, etc., and completed around July 27, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 8-1-3, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was re-subcontracted with the part of the pipe/line construction from the Defendant who was subcontracted the instant telecommunications construction work by setting the construction cost of KRW 130 million and the period from February 23, 2012 to July 27, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice that the Plaintiff was supplied with the Defendant on November 8, 2012, and the Defendant drafted from B a written consent for the direct payment of the subcontract price to the Plaintiff who was unable to directly claim the payment of the pipeline/line construction cost from the instant telecommunications construction work.

Therefore, this is applicable.