A. The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for C Construction Works, special high voltage cable distribution works, high voltage cable distribution works, and low voltage cable distribution works, which the Defendant was awarded in Gangwon-do.

B. On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff calculated the volume and unit price of 178,432 meters in total in cable length at the time, and estimated the average unit price per meter to be KRW 1,497.24 won in total, and the construction price to be KRW 267,154,766 in total by means of a semination calculation sheet (Evidence A-1-1), which estimated the Defendant to be KRW 178,000 in total length, KRW 1,490 in total, KRW 265,00,00 in total, and the construction price to be KRW 265,00 in total.

(A) Evidence No. 7) (c)

From November 1, 2015 to December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) performed cable installation works; and (b) was not completed due to bad weather conditions on January 4, 2016.

The Plaintiff settled the construction cost as KRW 262,856,932 by applying the premium rate to the 72,502m of the completion of the construction by arbitrarily applying the premium rate to the 72,502m of the 72,502m of the construction work, using the dump calculation table (Evidence A-2) estimating the average unit price perm as KRW 2,477.28, and the construction cost as KRW 442,02

(A) Evidence No. 1, e.

On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 70 million (excluding surtax) from the Defendant among the construction cost.

F. Meanwhile, the construction of the snow section that the Plaintiff failed to construct was completed by another company.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, witness D

2. Determination

A. It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff reported the portion of 72,502m in excess of 72,168m of the explanatory section that the Defendant is the Defendant only with the first settlement statement (Evidence A 1) as to the cause of the claim, and there is no other evidence.

At the time of the Sheet estimate, the Plaintiff expressed color to the Defendant on the wintering construction, and even after this kind of construction work, there was an obstacle to the literacy work due to weather deterioration and other working conditions, and the Plaintiff was also unable to perform the artalling work.

(See Evidence A No. 2). However, it is clearly revealed that the reason for the Plaintiff’s failure to resume the explanatory work after the removal at the site is clearly revealed.