공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In the third 5th of the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff submitted Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and submitted Gap evidence No. 9 from the first instance court to the end of March 2013, 2013, in the third 5th of the judgment of the first instance, the plaintiff asserted that "No. 9," and the plaintiff performed the plosia construction and the carpets construction during the construction in this case, which is the plaintiff's sub-contractor, through the third lusium, through the third lusium Co., Ltd., which is the plaintiff, from the last 2013. However, even according to the evidence No. 9, the 11,850,00 won, which was paid by the plaintiff from the plaintiff on March 16, 2013. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the construction work was executed by the plaintiff directly and directly after the construction price was suspended by the plaintiff to the third lusium Co., Ltd.
Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not interfere with the recognition and judgment of facts above.
(3) On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant is liable to pay the final settlement amount to the Plaintiff at least the amount of the final settlement to the Plaintiff, as the Defendant respondeded to the Plaintiff on July 19, 2013, and recognized the final settlement amount as KRW 36,318,752 (excluding value-added tax).
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 8-1 to No. 4, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to settle the construction cost of this case over several occasions from June to July 2013, 2013, which was after the discontinuance of the construction of this case, and the defendant requested the plaintiff to pay the "National Youth Training Center material cost" to the plaintiff on July 19, 2013.