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

A. On December 11, 2015, the Defendant awarded a contract to the C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “C”) for the new construction of the Dadex Construction Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the “Rodex Construction”) in the area of the said construction, the Defendant awarded a subcontract for four Dongs and remaining reinforced concrete construction works during the said construction period from December 11, 2015 to the Rodex Construction Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the “Rodex Construction”).

B. The Plaintiff provided labor in connection with the construction work performed by Rodex Construction, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking labor costs against Rodex Construction and the Defendant. On September 15, 2017, between the Plaintiff and Rodex Construction, adjustment was made between the Plaintiff and Rodex Construction to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence No. B or 1, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff provided labor equivalent to KRW 39,750,000 in relation to the construction work performed by Lodex Construction. D, the Defendant’s actual representative, agreed on January 23, 2017, that the Plaintiff would pay the said labor cost after the lapse of one to two months.

According to the instant conciliation, the Plaintiff received KRW 20 million from Rodex Construction. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 19,750,000, excluding the above KRW 20,000,000, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Gap's evidence No. 6 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same), it is not sufficient to recognize that Eul was an in-house director of the defendant and the representative director of Eul, but only with the above recognized facts and the statement of No. 1 through 5, it is insufficient to recognize that Eul agreed on the payment of labor cost as asserted by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2.