A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in construction machinery leasing business, construction machinery equipment repair and manufacturing business, and the Defendant is a company that engages in civil engineering design business and safety management business.

B. On April 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) paid the construction cost of KRW 224,290,000 (including value-added tax); and (b) the construction period from April 24, 2015 to 2016, with respect to the Gangwon-do Promotion Project (hereinafter “instant construction”) among “A project” that the same construction company (hereinafter “the same construction”) receives from the prime city;

9. As of the end of 30.30, sewage was supplied from the same construction.

C. On June 25, 2015, with respect to the instant construction project between the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for equipment leasing and ancillary construction set forth in the construction period from June 25, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and the construction amount of KRW 800 million (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). D.

The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work around October 15, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On February 1, 2016, the Defendant agreed to settle the additional construction cost at KRW 110 million with respect to the primary construction work completed by the Plaintiff around that time. 2) In addition, at the time of the agreement on the settlement of accounts, the Defendant agreed to receive “90% of the direct construction cost of the new unit price applied by the prime contractor when changing the design following the change of the floor level.” Since the increased construction cost of the secondary construction work is KRW 37,780,00,000, the additional construction cost for the secondary construction work is KRW 340,083,00,000 (=37780,000,000 x 90,000).

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s construction cost of KRW 1,250,083,00 as the construction cost to the Plaintiff (= KRW 340,000,000,000 paid KRW 340,083,000,000,000 paid by the Defendant and KRW 930,19,111 as the Defendant’s expense.