가. 인정사실 (1) 원고는 ‘D’이라는 상호로 샷시, 유리공사 등을 영위하는 자이고, 피고B는 ‘E’이라는 상호로 건축공사 등을 영위하는 자이다.

(2) From around December 2012, the Plaintiff had been awarded a subcontract for the subcontracted construction work at a construction site of several new buildings located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu from the said Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport before oral argument

B. The plaintiff asserts that the above defendant completed the construction work on several occasions at the new construction site located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, the construction cost which was not paid by the above defendant is KRW 10,296,000.

In this regard, Defendant B recognized that he subcontracted part of the construction work that the Defendant contracted to the Plaintiff, such as Changho Construction. However, Defendant B asserted that part of the construction claimed by the Plaintiff denied the existence of a subcontract agreement, the Plaintiff was not able to complete the construction work, and the said Defendant did not have any obligation by paying the construction cost in full to the Plaintiff.

Under the following, the subcontract part which is disputed among them is part of the construction work after around 2015.

First of all, we will examine whether the above defendant's obligation to pay the construction cost exists, and then examine whether the above defendant fully pays the construction cost.

C. On January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff’s claim for the unpaid construction cost (i) sought payment of KRW 2 million (Evidence A) for the additional construction cost from Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “Ulsan-dong”) (hereinafter “Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu,” the part concerning the additional construction cost), the Defendant asserts that the additional construction cost did not have been agreed upon.

In other words, the following are acknowledged by each entry of No. 3, No. 1, No. 1, and by the purport of the oral argument: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25079, Dec. 1, 2014>