A. From November 16, 2013, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant for a file distribution device construction work during several times during the Defendant’s work.

B. Around July 2016, the Plaintiff settled the remaining construction cost at the construction site of Seoul E, Daejeon F, Jeonju, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant construction project”) at KRW 81,302,650, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 81,302,650 to the Defendant on July 29, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). C.

After the issuance of the above tax invoice, the Plaintiff received KRW 30,00,000,000 as the repayment of the construction price of the instant case from the Defendant on August 31, 2017, including KRW 10,000,000 on October 31, 2017, and KRW 10,000 on December 8, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 18 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining construction cost (=81,302,650 won - 30,000,000 won) and delay damages therefrom, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the determination of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the sum of KRW 29.2 million should be additionally deducted, since the Defendant’s payment of the tax invoice to the Plaintiff was omitted on July 21, 2014, KRW 25 million on March 30, 2015, KRW 2.6 million on March 30, 2015, and KRW 1.6 million on April 13, 2015, even if the instant agreement was not issued.

According to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 23-1, 2, and 3 of evidence No. 23-3, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 29.2 million on the date and time of the argument (hereinafter “instant omitted amount”), and the fact that no tax invoice for the instant omitted amount was issued is found to have been issued, but the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as seen earlier, Gap’s evidence No. 5, 7, and 8, and Eul’s evidence No. 21 and the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows.