1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a corporation that carries out a waterproof and landscaping work, and the defendant is the operator of the Da filling station in Daejeon-gu Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as the "instant filling station").

E prepared a estimate of KRW 73,700,000 for the incidental civil works, etc. of the instant charging station in the name of the Plaintiff around April 2015.

G requested the Plaintiff to perform a prompt construction work near the instant charging station boundary (hereinafter “instant construction work”) by telephone around April 2015.

On May 3, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a trading list of KRW 3,190,000 for construction cost as to the Defendant’s “H Corporation” as the other party.

On December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 3,190,000 for the “FH Corporation” as a person who is supplied with the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the plaintiff's judgment on the ground of a claim for the purport of the entire pleadings concluded the construction contract of this case with the defendant and completed the construction work of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of 3,190,000 won and damages for delay. However, the above evidence, Gap's evidence No. 2 and the result of the request for delivery of documents to the Cheongju District Court of this Court are insufficient to acknowledge it, and there

[In light of the purport of the entire arguments in each of the statements in the 1, 2, 3, 57 evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 57 of Eul (including the virtual number), the defendant, around April 2015, ordered E to perform construction works for installing the instant charging office and fences around 25,00,000, and did not seem to have concluded a construction contract separately with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff argued to the effect that the defendant, the ordering person, is obligated to pay the construction cost directly to the plaintiff in accordance with the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act. However, the above law is unfair subcontract acts of large enterprises.