1. The conjunctive claim by subrogation of creditor among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant newly constructed a multi-household house with five floors in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) through C, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on each section of exclusive ownership of the said building on May 27, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with C, and with respect to the newly constructed construction site for multi-household housing (Seoul Seodaemun-gu E; hereinafter “First Construction site”) and the newly constructed construction site for the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction site”), which is run by C in the vicinity of the instant building.

The above two construction sites are about 380 meters away from each other, and F, an employee of C, controlled the above two construction sites.

C. On March 2016, the Defendant issued to C a payment contract in lieu of the Defendant’s name (Evidence No. 2; hereinafter “instant blank contract”) stating “The purpose real estate, creditor, principal, and contract date,” etc., as the horses of C necessary to resolve insufficient construction costs for the completion of the instant building, along with a sale and purchase contract and a certificate of personal seal impression attached thereto.

On May 30, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 200 million to C, and recovered all of the blank contract of this case from C.

around that time, five-story multi-households were completed at the construction site of the first construction site, and on June 10, 2016, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of G was completed with respect to each section of exclusive ownership.

E. C received construction cost from the Defendant and paid construction cost to construction business operators. They, like the Plaintiff, did not distinguish whether construction cost at the instant construction site is either the construction cost at the instant construction site or the construction cost at the first construction site and received construction cost from C.

F. After the completion of the instant building, disputes arose between the Defendant and C with respect to the settlement of construction expenses, and in the process, the Plaintiff received the receipt that the Plaintiff received KRW 87,20,000 as the total voting cost at the construction site of the instant construction site on September 15, 2016, below the evidence No. 3.