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

A. On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff is a temporary construction and steel reinforced concrete construction among TS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TS Construction; hereinafter referred to as TS Construction; hereinafter referred to as ES Construction) and leisure B construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”).

B) Around March 2013, Es. Es. Construction commenced the instant construction from around 702,30,000, but failed to complete the construction from July 2013, 2013, which was the initial air. Since then, the construction was suspended on the grounds of the occurrence of additional construction costs, the occurrence of additional costs due to the Plaintiff’s duty, and the failure to pay the Plaintiff’s progress payment. C. On March 19, 2013, the Defendant was selected from the Defendant as the on-site agent of the instant construction, and served as the person responsible for the on-site work. [In the absence of any dispute over recognition, each of the entries in subparagraphs A through 11, 14, and 17, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant construction project was performed under a subcontract from TS Construction, and unilaterally suspended the construction work on February 3, 2014.

Due to the discontinuance of the above construction, the Plaintiff terminated the construction contract with Ess. Construction and directly performed the remaining construction work, and the Plaintiff incurred additional costs of KRW 28,791,480.

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit filed by Nonparty C and six other parties, the Plaintiff accepted the decision of recommending reconciliation of the full bench, and paid 9,905,000 won to Nonparty C and six other parties on February 23, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 28,791,480 and the amount of KRW 9,905,00 and damages for delay paid instead of the amount of damages caused by the discontinuance of construction.

B. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had been re-subcontracted the instant construction from ES Construction with respect to the claim for damages due to the discontinuance of construction, and rather, the Defendant is merely a person employed as ES Construction site agent. Therefore, it is so far as seen earlier.