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

A. On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to accept a subcontract (hereinafter “instant contract”) by setting the steel frame construction cost of KRW 210,000,000 among the construction works of the building parking lot for Asan City, the construction period of which was contracted by the Defendant to Hosung Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ssung Construction”) and by October 30, 2015.

B. On May 25, 2016, the agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant as “contestor,” and C (Representative D) as “third debtor,” was drafted by the “Agreement on the Termination of Works” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

According to the instant agreement, “The construction cost of the instant contract shall be modified to KRW 126,00,000, and the remainder part of the construction work shall be reduced to KRW 84,000,000,000, which is the remainder of the construction work, and the Defendant shall not be fully liable after the termination, and the remainder of the construction cost shall be paid in full by C, and if damage occurs, civil and criminal liability shall be entirely responsible in C and E (the trade name of the business entity operated by the Plaintiff).”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The party's assertion that the plaintiff did not receive the total of KRW 106,150,000 (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 12,50,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the remainder of construction cost (excluding value-added tax) in relation to the contract in this case, and then received KRW 25,000 as the construction cost for the contract in this case. As such, the defendant asserted that the defendant sought payment of KRW 81,150,000 for the remainder of construction cost, through the agreement in this case, the defendant would not be liable for the payment of the construction cost under the contract in this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff again, ①.