2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On January 9, 2014, the Defendant awarded a contract for the tin work (hereinafter “instant tin work”) among the apartment apartment construction in Ulsan-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Dong Construction”) to the Dongbu Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongbu Construction”) for KRW 204,90,000.

B. On October 2014, the instant stone construction cost increased by 7.5 million won.

C. Around December 2, 2014, Dongbu Construction completed the instant stone construction, and the Defendant paid 212,400,000 won for the instant stone construction to Dongbu Construction.

The Plaintiff re-demanded the instant stone construction from the East Construction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 3-1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff received an additional supply of construction cost of KRW 22,177,500 from the Defendant to the site main construction not directly included in the instant tin (hereinafter “instant additional construction”) and completed it on October 6, 2014.

The defendant's site director C directly ordered the supplementary construction of this case to the plaintiff and ordered to pay the construction cost immediately.

Luxembourg The Defendant only traded with the Defendant’s East Construction, but did not engage in any transaction with the Plaintiff, and part of the additional construction was completed with the construction of the Eastern Construction.

B. The plaintiff's statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, which corresponds to the fact that the plaintiff was directly supplied with the additional construction work of this case by the defendant (the employee of the defendant), is not sufficient to directly recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's statement in Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 13, 15, and 16 was prepared by the plaintiff, and it is hard to believe in light of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 13, 15, and 16, and that the plaintiff's statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Agreement) is "the additional construction work of this case is not related to the building of Dong department and it is necessary for the plaintiff to directly claim against the defendant," and it is not sufficient to directly recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3