[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 1

2. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff actually performed construction works equivalent to KRW 1,029,889,371, including additional construction works resulting from design modification, and was paid KRW 768,959,050 from the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant ought to pay KRW 260,930,321, which is the above difference, to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff under the instant subcontract is the amount calculated by deducting the Plaintiff’s non-construction cost from the construction cost of KRW 755,700,000 of the instant subcontract as seen earlier.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s non-construction cost is KRW 122,53,955. However, since the Plaintiff’s claim and application for change of the cause of claim as of November 15, 2017 and the non-construction cost (128,683,726 won) stated by Gap’s certificate of claim No. 3 exceeds the above amount claimed by the Defendant, the Defendant recognized said KRW 122,53,955 as the non-construction cost.

Therefore, the plaintiff's work price is 633,166,045 won (75,700,000 won - 122,53,955 won).

B. According to the appraisal result of the appraiser D for additional construction cost, it can be found that the additional construction cost to be finally increased or decreased by design modification or error work as to the instant subcontract is the cause of 214,911,382.

C. According to each description of Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff was a person who was paid KRW 768,959,050 from the defendant, and it is recognized that the defendant paid KRW 3,630,000 on behalf of the defendant. Thus, the above total amount of KRW 772,589,050 ( KRW 768,959,050) ( KRW 3,630,00) is paid by the plaintiff.