A. The plaintiff is a company that aims at the construction business of electricity, etc., and the defendant is a company that aims at the sales business of electrical equipment.

B. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant awarded a contract for the LED name and the same electrical construction of B, a golf course located in the Republic of Korea, a golf course located in the Republic of Korea, from the Republic of Korea, from the Republic of Korea, on January 22, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the Defendant subcontracted KRW 623,300,000 to the Plaintiff for 623,30,000.

C. The Defendant paid KRW 345,700,000 to the Plaintiff out of the construction cost as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, witness C's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The key issue is: (a) the Plaintiff sought the balance of the construction price upon completion of the instant construction project; and (b) the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the construction price, since the instant construction project was not completed.

Ultimately, the issue of this case is whether the construction of this case is completed or not.

3. Although the construction work is suspended during the course of the determination and fails to complete the last process scheduled to be completed, it shall be interpreted that the construction work is completed even if the last process intended to be completed, but it is reasonable to interpret that the construction work is completed if the construction work is to be repaired due to incomplete defects, but it is only that there is a defect in the object. Whether the last process intended to be completed has to be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the relevant contract and the good faith principle, without recourse to the contractor's assertion or the contractor's inspection of completion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da32986 delivered on September 30, 1994, Supreme Court Decision 94Da4282 delivered on February 23, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 97Da23150 delivered on October 10, 1997, etc.). In full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and 8, the Plaintiff is the Corporation.