A. B Corporation 1) around March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) around March 5, 2012, the Defendant performed the B Corporation (hereinafter “B”); (b) upon receipt of an order from Macheon-si; (c)

(2) According to the evidence No. 4 (Written Claim for Completion), the Defendant, as the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff mobilized, should include the amount of KRW 66,136,50,00 in the Defendant’s reimbursement source out of the B construction cost, but according to the evidence No. 4 (Written Claim for Completion), the Plaintiff did not include the E portion in the B construction cost, and thus, this amount is excluded from the Defendant’s reimbursement source.

A. The payment was made.

B. C Corporation 1) In addition, around March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) around March 26, 2012, the Defendant performed C Corporation upon receiving an order from Macheon-si (hereinafter “C Corporation”).

(1) In relation to C construction cost of KRW 195,115,472, the “Hadodo Construction cost” at the bottom of the completion settlement statement (Evidence A3) was 182,02,00 won. However, it is clear that the sum totaling the entire accounts of the above completion settlement statement is 195,115,472 won (i.e., 112,64,472 won) (i., 16,86,800 won 21,670,670,000 won 15,280,50,000 won, 5,504,200 won). The Defendant was awarded a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 184,115,472 won, including the Defendant’s portion of the payment settlement of construction cost of KRW 176,318,00,000, and the Plaintiff did not include the Defendant’s portion of the payment settlement of construction cost of KRW C.

A. The payment was made.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1-12 evidence, Eul 1-3 evidence (including each number), the witness D’s testimony, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The defendant's duty to pay the remainder of the construction work.