A. On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff engaged in the fire-fighting system installation business: (a) supplied KRW 127,500,000 for the construction cost of the PC T/K Fire Fighting Corporation (hereinafter “instant factory B”); and (b) received KRW 28,00,000 for the construction cost of the C apartment fire fighting equipment replacement and integrated relocation (hereinafter “instant apartment construction”) on November 9, 2012.

The construction contract of the instant B factory is subject to the following special agreement:

5) As a result of the examination conducted by all workers, 11) Construction sections shall be invested/paid by the Plaintiff.

12) The Plaintiff shall bear the expendable and miscellaneous materials related to the construction. 17) Other matters shall be manufactured and constructed in accordance with the site descriptions and the detailed specifications of the contract, and any additional construction cost shall be nonexistent.

The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 120,687,219 from the Defendant until February 9, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Gap evidence 9-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (i) The Plaintiff asserts that, other than the instant B factories and C Apartments construction, the Plaintiff added the following additional construction works according to the Defendant’s orders, D et al., and that, if the two construction costs and the additional construction amounts are combined, the Plaintiff would be KRW 190,442,318.

The defendant asserts that additional works other than the above two cases cannot be recognized.

⑵ 개별 공사에 대한 판단 ㈎ 한국 알콜 펌프실 소방공사 1,320,000원 피고는 원고가 이 공사를 시행한 바 없다고 주장한다.

Witness

D From June 2012 to August 2012, 2012, D instructed and managed the instant B factory work as the Defendant’s site manager from June 2012 to August 2012, and the Plaintiff instructed the Plaintiff to perform the instant factory work, and the additional construction cost was the Defendant’s liability with the prior approval. Accordingly, the Plaintiff testified that the additional construction was carried out.