A. On October 11, 201, the Plaintiff (contractor) contracted the instant construction work to the Defendant (contractor) with the cost of construction KRW 170,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) plus the following additional construction works (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

Since then, the plaintiff and the defendant decided to perform additional construction, and the construction cost has been settled later.

B. The Defendant suspended the instant construction work on August 15, 2012, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 783,387,000 to the Defendant as the construction price of the instant case until that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the construction cost of KRW 891,890,000 after the Defendant ceased the instant construction work, including defect repair work and the settlement of construction cost, etc.

(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 137,00,000 in total from March 2, 2013 to June 2013, and directly performed the instant construction work for repairing defects, as the Defendant did not perform the defect repair work.

Therefore, the construction cost of KRW 93,503,00 (=891,890,000) that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant - the construction cost of KRW 783,387,000 paid directly by the Plaintiff to the Defendant - The construction cost of KRW 15,000 paid by the Plaintiff to D on behalf of the Defendant is deducted from the defect repair cost of KRW 137,00,000,00 from the defect repair cost of KRW 137,00,000, the Plaintiff does not eventually have any construction cost to

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any agreement on the instant settlement of accounts.

In addition, the construction cost of this case should be added from 891,890,000 to 36,383,440 won as claimed by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the unpaid construction cost of KRW 144,886,440 (=891,890,000) to KRW 36,383,440 - KRW 783,387,00).

3. Determination

A. There is no dispute over the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the instant construction cost, and the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2.