1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit on the part of the claim for the payment of the construction price is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the claim for the payment of the construction price by artificial insemination from C was for the purpose of the instant lawsuit, and thus becomes null and void as it constitutes a litigation trust.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that he was transferred the above contract price claim by payment in lieu of loan from C, and there is no evidence to conclude that such assertion is false, and there is no other evidence to prove that the claim transfer contract between the plaintiff and C is for the trust of lawsuit. Thus, the defendant's principal safety defense is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) around 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 2.6 million from the Defendant, and conducted cleaning and cleaning of the E building located in Gyeongbuk-gun D (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) Around that time, C was paid the construction price by the Defendant, and the interior work of the instant building was conducted. The Plaintiff lent KRW 7 million to C as the construction price.

The Plaintiff acquired the above construction price claim against the Defendant from C as the payment in lieu of the loan.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the service cost and the interior work cost for the cleaning work (hereinafter “instant construction cost, etc.”) of KRW 9.6 million and the delay damages therefrom.

B. (1) No evidence exists to acknowledge that the party to the above service contract or the construction contract alleged by the Plaintiff is the defendant.

Rather, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the building of this case is owned by E at the time, and since the defendant was recognized as a regular executive of E, even if the defendant ordered the above construction, it is merely an executive of the above contract.