1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 23,397,813 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from December 23, 2011 to August 28, 2014.

1. On December 16, 2010, the basic facts were divided into KRW 1,653 square meters of land C and 56 square meters of land (hereinafter “D road” on December 7, 2011, the land category of which was changed to three large scale 1,597 square meters on December 12, 201) in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Seoul, and the construction cost for the construction of a living facility for disabled persons (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant construction”), with respect to the construction cost for the construction of a new facility for disabled persons (hereinafter “instant construction”), 600,000,000 won ( separate value-added tax), the contract document (Evidence 1), written contract to which the contractor is the subcontractor, the subcontractor, and the contractor (Evidence 2) and the same content as the foregoing, respectively.

(A) The construction contract of this case (hereinafter "the contract of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 2

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. As the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into the instant contract with the Defendant and completed the instant building on October 14, 201, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 45,00,00 for the unpaid construction cost and KRW 130,541,023 or at least KRW 74,979,843 as a result of appraisal according to the Defendant’s request for change of design.

B. The Defendant’s primary assertion is that, with the name of “F”, the Defendant entrusted the instant construction work to E running a private company and paid the construction cost to E. However, although E did not have a license for a comprehensive construction business, the Defendant was externally prepared a formal contract (Evidence A1) with the Plaintiff as the contractor and E as the guarantor due to the lack of a comprehensive construction business license.

E has inserted a provision that "E undertakes to fulfill its responsibilities for all matters against the plaintiff in good faith" by attaching a special agreement to the contract (No. 2) in which it is the contractor.

Therefore, the contractor of the contract of this case is not the plaintiff but E, and the principal claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the contractor is without merit.

C. Determination No. 1 and No. 1 as to whether the Plaintiff is a contractor for the instant contract.