1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2013, the Defendant received contracts from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do for the construction cost of KRW 187,224,000 for the mountain stream preservation works located B (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

(hereinafter “instant prime contract”). B.

Around May 10, 2013, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction work to C (State) at KRW 116,087,00 (excluding value-added tax) for the construction cost.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”). (c)

On June 24, 2013, the construction cost of the original contract was changed to KRW 163,108,000.

[Defendant asserts that the subcontract price of this case has been reduced to KRW 100,600,000 (excluding value-added tax)].

On the other hand, the instant construction project practically carried out D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry of Eul's evidence 1 through 7, testimony of witness E, purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion provided construction equipment and services equivalent to KRW 22,050,000 in total at the instant construction site from June 7, 2013 to August 6, 2013 at the request of E upon D’s request.

D Since the defendant belongs to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff.

3. The key issue of this case is whether D belongs to the Defendant.

The following circumstances are acknowledged to show the overall purport of the pleading in the witness E’s testimony: (i) A made a statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff served as a field manager on behalf of the State” in the relevant criminal case; (ii) Edo Do Do D affiliated with the site of this case or the Defendant appears not to be accurately aware of whether the Plaintiff is affiliated with the State C; and (iii) the Defendant appears to have paid all the subcontract price of this case to D or C (State), the sole evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge D as affiliated with the Defendant; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.