A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the construction business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is the owner of the D-Ground Housing (hereinafter “instant Housing”) in Jeonnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and E is a person who works as the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s employee.

B. Around June 2017, the Defendant had completed the ground, columns, and roof construction of the instant house to the Plaintiff via E before the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to perform the instant construction work.

In addition, the following 3.B.

As recognized in the paragraph, five parts of the construction were completed by the defendant.

Therefore, among the instant housing, only the type of construction work completed by the Plaintiff refers to the instant construction work.

(hereinafter “instant construction project”) was requested, and the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the instant construction project in response thereto, but did not prepare a separate contract for the instant construction project.

C. The Plaintiff continued the instant construction until February 2018, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 360,000,000 as the construction cost of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 through 7 (including partial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim

A. The main claim for construction cost of this case (including additional construction cost) is KRW 538,269,310 (including value added tax). The defendant paid only KRW 360,000,000 to the plaintiff as the construction cost.

The defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the plaintiff 178,269,310 won and damages for delay.

B. Even if the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion that the construction price claim against the defendant is not recognized, the defendant obtained the economic benefit of constructing the instant house without any legal ground due to the construction work of this case, and thus, the defendant paid the construction price of this case to the plaintiff.