1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant, on May 30, 201, determined and awarded a contract for the repair and installation of file equipment to C on May 30, 201 as construction cost of KRW 240 million (payment within one month after the completion of a trial run), C was declared bankrupt by Suwon District Court, C was declared bankrupt by Suwon District Court, C’s bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt corporation, and C transferred to the plaintiff the claim of KRW 82,063,200 against C on March 6, 2018.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost to the plaintiff as the transferee, unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant has already paid the construction price to C, and even if not, the defendant's claim for the construction price of this case against C has expired by prescription.

First, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is examined.

In full view of the facts as seen earlier, as well as evidence Nos. 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the claim for construction cost of this case can be acknowledged as having been filed on or around March 15, 2012 after C completed construction of file facilities and completed trial operation. As such, the claim for construction cost of this case had already expired prior to March 6, 2018 by the Plaintiff’s transfer of the claim.

Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments of the defendant, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.