2. The reasoning of the court's argument concerning this case is as follows: 10-11 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "32,53,204 won for the tin-to-face construction work executed by another company" under the table 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "32,553,204 won for the total construction work in light-to-face c2,553,204 won for the tin-to-face 32,553,204 won (7,087,50 won for light-to-face 7,087,500 won for the tin-to-face 22,256,322 won for the tin-to-face 22,256,322 won for the mar-to-face mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar 250,11, and value-added tax."

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As to the unpaid progress payment and the claim for substitute payment, the Defendant provided the iron bars and ready-mixed needed for the instant construction, and the fact that the payment was 103,678,150 is no dispute between the parties.

In light of the fact that the Defendant had another company execute the construction work by excluding it from the scope of the Plaintiff’s construction work, there is no dispute between the parties concerned. In light of the evidence No. 2-4, the part of the construction work stipulated in the instant subcontract, which falls under each of the above construction works, among the construction work under the instant subcontract, appears to have been stated in the net cost stated in the “detailed” portion of the contract specifications of KRW 26,14,525, which includes general management expenses, profits and value-added taxes, and KRW 36,021,621 x 36,021,621 x 621 x 28,534,50, which includes the “net” portion of the contract specifications x 39,314,50, which includes the net cost of the construction work, and the net cost of the construction work entered in the “part No. 500,” among the contract specifications, it appears to have been the net cost of the construction work.