1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 14, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with a limited liability company (i.e., a limited liability company prior to the alteration; hereinafter referred to as “soil construction”) and a astronomical C New Construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) on setting the contract amount of KRW 2 billion.

B. As of January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the content that the contract amount of KRW 74 million and the construction period of the unused construction among the instant construction works shall be fixed from August 15, 2012 to June 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the unclaimed construction at the instant construction site on or around March 18, 2014.

C. Of the construction cost under the instant contract, the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million in the name of D on November 14, 2012, and KRW 20 million in the total of KRW 10 million in the name of Saturdays Construction on November 19, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 13, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On October 201, 201, the Defendant’s representative E, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, granted F a position as the Defendant’s adviser and a general manager for the instant construction work, and F accordingly managed the entire construction of the instant case.

On June 2012, the Plaintiff heard that the Defendant is responsible for and paid the construction cost from F, and the Defendant’s representative director E also promised to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost under the instant contract with F on September 2012.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost under the above agreement to the plaintiff, or to pay the remainder of the subcontract price directly pursuant to Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

3. The fact that the other party to the contract of this case entered into with the Plaintiff is the contractor of the Defendant is as seen earlier, and the whole purport of the pleadings is considered based on the basic facts and the statement in Gap evidence No. 12.