1. The part of the claim for construction cost based on the subrogation right of the obligee among the lawsuits in this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 4, 2015, the Defendant contracted the construction of new factory facilities of Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and one parcel of land outside Korea to C (hereinafter “C”) at the contract price of KRW 638 million.

B. On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the construction cost of KRW 198 million for the steel framed among the said construction works by C.

C. On November 2015, C ceased contracting construction works to a police officer, and the Plaintiff exercised a lien on steel structure around April 20, 2016.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 2, Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. (1) In order to preserve the claim for the payment of the subcontract price against Plaintiff C, the Defendant shall seek the payment of the contract price in subrogation of C.

See The defendant as the father of the defendant, as his agent, promised to pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff, thus seeking the payment of the contract price.

Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant shall obtain profits from the plaintiff's property or labor without any legal ground, and thereby seek the return of unjust enrichment.

B. (i) Defendant C’s insolvency is not proved, and there is no contract payment claim against the Defendant.

Luxembourg The defendant proposed to pay KRW 50 million to the plaintiff in order to complete the non-execution part on the wind that the plaintiff exercises the right of retention, and it does not mean that C promises to pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff.

The monetary content of June 5, 2015 asserted by the Plaintiff is merely a discussion for the completion of the suspended construction, and there is no obligation to pay KRW 50 million because the Plaintiff did not complete the unconstruction portion.

Fidelity may not claim a return of unjust enrichment against the defendant who is not a party to the contract.

3. Determination

A. In order for the plaintiff to exercise the subrogation right against the obligor, C's insolvency, which is the obligor, should be proved. There is no evidence to prove that C is insolvent.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of subrogation is worth preserving.