1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 2014, the Korea Environment Corporation announced a public announcement of the asbestos slate dismantling and disposal work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) in Busan Dong-gu, Jung-gu, and Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “Seoul”).

The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a joint supply and demand agreement with the sharing performance method on February 24, 2014, and participated in the said bidding and was awarded the instant construction project on March 6, 2014.

B. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a joint contract with the Korea Environment Corporation and the representative company based on the method of sharing the construction period on November 30, 2014, with the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff (non-meter, structure dismantling construction business), the contractor as the Defendant (scale dismantling and removal business), the total construction cost as KRW 594,289,850, and the joint contract for construction work as of November 30, 201

C. The instant construction was completed on December 15, 2014, and the Plaintiff and the Korea Environment Corporation settled the total construction cost of KRW 393,829,00,000. Of them, KRW 118,148,700 equivalent to 30% was paid to the Plaintiff, and KRW 275,680,30 equivalent to the remainder 70% was paid to the Defendant.

On the other hand, on March 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract to subcontract the waste treatment of the instant construction project with the Sejong District Court (hereinafter “SY”) and the Plaintiff. Although the construction work was completed on or around December 2014, it was not paid KRW 33,494,580 among the construction cost of KRW 79,494,580, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for service cost as Busan District Court Decision 2015Da24511, Oct. 15, 2015.

The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the plaintiff paid 33,494,580 won to Sejong Young-gu.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim) is in exclusive charge of administrative affairs, and the Defendant performs all construction works, and the Plaintiff agreed to the settlement ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the Plaintiff 15 out of the total construction cost. As such, the total construction cost.