The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was re-subcontracted for KRW 160,047,370, and completed the construction work by re-subcontracting for KRW 75,671,350 (hereinafter “instant construction”). However, the Defendant paid KRW 75,530,370 out of the said construction cost and did not receive the remainder of KRW 85,530,370. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not have re-subcontracted the instant construction to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is merely the Plaintiff’s undertaking of the instant construction as a worker and receiving labor cost from the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the construction cost of this case is without merit.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff was re-subcontracted by the Defendant.

In the following circumstances, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 5, the plaintiff and the defendant did not prepare disposal documents, such as a subcontract agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. ② Written estimate (Evidence No. 2) submitted by the plaintiff is not a estimate for the construction of the apartment of this case, but a quotation submitted by the defendant at the time of receiving a subcontract for the construction of the new apartment of this case from E Co., Ltd., and ③ If the plaintiff is a sub-subcontractor of the construction of this case, the costs for human resources invested in the construction of this case are deemed to have been borne by the plaintiff in principle. However, the plaintiff, unlike this, submitted the daily work cost statement and a substitute statement to the defendant, and received labor cost or food expenses from the defendant, etc. ④