1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2017, the Defendant, who runs the electrical construction business with the trade name of “C”, was awarded a contract for the electrical construction (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”) from D to D with the cost of construction KRW 38 million (within three weeks after completion of the construction) for the electrical construction among the new construction of the building on the land of Gangwon-gu, Seoul and two parcels (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”). Around that time, the Defendant subcontracted the instant electrical construction to the Plaintiff at KRW 34 million. Of the above KRW 34 million, 50% out of the total amount of KRW 34 million was paid within four weeks after completion of the construction, and the remainder of 50% was paid after completion of the construction.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the instant electrical construction to F. F.

B. On May 2007, the instant electrical construction was interrupted due to the financial resources of D, a contractor of the said electrical construction.

C. On November 20, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to F as the instant electrical construction price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff executed the electrical construction of this case, and the defendant is obliged to pay all the construction cost of KRW 34 million to the plaintiff. The defendant prepared a letter of payment (Evidence A 1; hereinafter "the letter of payment of this case") and agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant to adjust the above construction cost of KRW 18 million. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above KRW 5 million, which is paid as the price of the electrical construction of this case at KRW 18 million, the remaining amount of KRW 13 million.

In regard to this, the defendant not only did the plaintiff did not directly execute the electrical construction of this case (in this sense, the defendant paid the above five million won to F who directly executed the electrical construction of this case), and because the defendant's wife who is not the defendant arbitrarily prepared the letter of payment of this case, it is not effective, and otherwise, the defendant paid 18 million won to the plaintiff as the price of the electrical construction of this case.