1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a contract from C, etc. for the construction of 7 units of ground neighborhood living facilities and multi-family houses and 7 units of multi-family houses; (b) around the 18th day of the same month, the Defendant subcontracted the mold and reinforced concrete construction work among the above construction to E in KRW 529 million for the construction cost.

B. The Plaintiff operated a restaurant in F in mutual name, “G”, and the subcontracted public corporations, including those directly operated by the Defendant and those in the form of a mold, were provided with meals in the Plaintiff restaurant.

C. As to meal expenses, etc. provided by the Plaintiff to the said subcontractor from September 2015 to February 3, 2016, the Defendant had the owner transfer KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff on December 11, 2015, and KRW 5.8 million on March 4, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers)

2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined as follows and claimed an unpaid amount of KRW 10,712,200 and interest for delay for meal, etc. provided to the said subcontractor’s husband from September 2015 to February 3, 2016.

We examine the legitimacy of the plaintiff's assertion, including the defendant's specific rebuttals.

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, at the Defendant’s on-site director’s request, provided meals, etc. to the above subcontracted construction workers, and the Defendant, as a contracting party, should pay the unpaid food for the said subcontracted construction workers. The Defendant asserts that H’s request is meals, etc. for those directly engaged in the subcontracted construction work, and that the awareness for the said subcontracted construction workers is the responsibility of E, etc.

However, the evidence No. 3 E, however, has been served with a written request for witness attendance at this court and has not been absent without any justifiable reason, and the fine for negligence has been determined and several times thereafter.