1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 2016, the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a construction contract with the Defendant for a reinforced concrete construction of KRW 320 million with respect to reinforced concrete construction among Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C construction works, and completed construction on or around June 23, 2017. The Plaintiff concluded a construction contract with the Defendant for a construction contract of KRW 33 million with respect to reinforced concrete construction among the new multi-household D construction works in Seoul Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and completed construction on or around November 19, 2018.

However, the defendant did not pay 13.1 million won and 5.0 million won among the above construction costs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 18.1 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff concluded a construction contract with the Defendant regarding reinforced concrete construction among the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Construction and the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Multi-household Construction Construction.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is liable to pay the construction cost under each of the above construction works to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the Plaintiff, among the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C corporation, contracted by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) from F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), for the construction of reinforced concrete subcontracted by E on September 5, 2016, invested the seal and carried out steel work at G’s request. The Defendant can only recognize the fact that he/she was a co-representative of G, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of construction price against the Defendant, other than G.

(Decree) Even if the Plaintiff received part of the above construction cost from the Defendant, it is difficult to view that each of the above construction contract was concluded with the representative director solely on the ground that the construction cost was paid from the account of the representative director.