1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, the owner of the building on May 2015, 201, and Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, to newly construct a farming house owned by the Defendant at KRW 90 million (3 million per square year x building area x 30 square meters). During the new construction project, the Plaintiff entered into an oral construction contract with the Defendant, the owner of the building, and obtained approval for use on September 9, 2015 upon completion of all the construction works.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 80 million after deducting the Defendant paid KRW 50 million from the total construction cost of KRW 130 million.

B. The Defendant’s assertion first, the other party who entered into a contract for new construction of a house for the farming household with the Defendant is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff. Second, the contact was interrupted without completion of the construction work, and the Defendant, through another company, constructed the defective repair work directly by the Defendant as well as the defective construction work on the part of the construction work. Third, even though the construction work was completed until the end of June 2016 and completed the completion inspection and concluded the construction work at the completion inspection at the beginning of September 2015, the Defendant applied for the completion of construction work at the end of September 2015. Fourth, the construction work price at issue was set at KRW 300,000 per square year, and there was no consent to the construction work exceeding the above amount even if D demanded additional construction work.

2. First of all, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the other party to the contract for the construction of new house for the above farm household is not D but the Plaintiff (i.e., that D is the partner of the Plaintiff representative director is insufficient to recognize that the other party to the contract is the Plaintiff). There is no evidence

Even if the plaintiff asserts that the above construction was suspended without completion, the plaintiff should prove the completion of the construction.