The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant entered into a contract for the construction of a new C neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant contract for construction”) with the Defendant to set the construction cost of KRW 420,000,000, and continued the construction work.

However, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 10,500,000 as the construction cost, and the construction was eventually interrupted.

Since the period of the Plaintiff’s discontinuance at the time of the discontinuance of the instant construction falls under 53.58%, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 214,536,00 (=420,000,000 x 53.58% - 10,500,000) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price based on the premise that the instant construction contract was concluded does not have concluded the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant denies the authenticity of the standard contract for private construction works (Evidence A(Evidence A(3)), which is a direct evidence of the plaintiff's assertion that the contract was entered into with the defendant, as to the signature and seal of the standard contract for private construction works, which is a direct evidence of the plaintiff's assertion that the contract was entered into with the defendant. Accordingly, the above contract has no

Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant construction contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the instant construction contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is without merit without

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that if the instant construction contract is not acknowledged through the reference document, it would be added to the cause of claim for return of unjust enrichment as a preliminary cause of claim. However, if the contractual performance becomes the benefit of a third party as well as the other party to the contract, the other party to the contract who provided the benefit may claim the counter-performance of the contract