1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On August 2, 2016, the Defendant and the non-party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party D”) entered into a construction contract with the non-party company for construction works for the second floor agricultural and fishery product processing facilities of the general steel structure (hereinafter “instant construction works”) on the land of non-party C in Yangju-si (hereinafter “the non-party company”). The construction contract was completed on November 20, 2016 by the Defendant, setting the payment for the construction works for the non-party company at KRW 997,10,00 (excluding value-added tax), the date of commencement, August 1, 2016, and the date of completion of the completion of the construction works (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) as of October 30, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”). The instant construction works were completed on or around November 20, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the construction contract of this case was prepared in the name of the non-party company only in form by obtaining a construction business license from the non-party company with a relationship without a construction business license, and the actual contractor who concluded and executed the construction contract of this case with the defendant is the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 446,810,00 (including the construction cost = KRW 1,096,810,000 (including the value-added tax) - the construction cost of KRW 650,000) and the delay damages therefor.

The summary of the Defendant’s defense regarding this safety defense was that the Plaintiff sought a loan on the ground that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant in the first instance trial, and the Plaintiff changed the cause of the claim to seek a payment of the construction cost on the ground that the Plaintiff was the actual contractor of the instant construction contract. The foregoing change in the cause of claim is unlawful on the grounds that the ground of claim is not identical

Since the contractor stated in the instant construction contract is a non-party company that is not the plaintiff, the plaintiff has no standing to seek payment of the construction price against the defendant under the instant construction contract.

. Determination.