1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with A and B (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the content that the Defendant supplies the scrap metal generated among the instant construction works for KRW 900 million.

A established C on September 19, 2014, a company engaged in the sale of used materials, etc., and C and the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of scrap metal related to the instant construction by changing the price into KRW 1 billion around October 2014.

After that, around December 2014, C and the defendant concluded a contract for the supply of scrap metal related to the instant construction by changing the price of KRW 250 million to KRW 250 million.

B. On August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with A to supply the Plaintiff with the scrap metal and scrap metal generated during the instant construction project, etc., and the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million in advance to A.

Upon A’s request, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million out of the said advance payment KRW 100 million to A on August 29, 2014, and remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s account on August 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Around February 2015, the Defendant promised to directly supply the Plaintiff with all scrap metal generated at the instant construction site except for scrap metal with an amount of KRW 275 million payable to the Defendant, which is equivalent to KRW 55 million.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not supply scrap metal, etc. to the Plaintiff and carried them out to another place at the construction site of this case, and the scrap metal, etc. did not remain.

The plaintiff accepted a contract for the supply of scrap metal concluded between A and the defendant.

In addition, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s obligation to supply, such as scrap metal, etc.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for nonperformance due to impossibility of performance.

Even if the above acceptance is not recognized, the plaintiff who has the damage claim against A on the ground of nonperformance of obligation against A in subrogation of A.