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

A. On March 10, 2012, the Defendant awarded a contract to D (hereinafter “D”) for a newly built multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) on the land of Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 450 million.

B. Around October 2012, 2012, E, the substantial representative of D, is bound and thus it is difficult for D to continue the construction work. Around that time, D ceased the construction work, and the Defendant directly selected the remainder of the construction work and completed the construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. When the Plaintiff’s assertion was detained by E, the Defendant awarded a contract for the entire remaining construction cost of KRW 42,909,000 to the Plaintiff with friendship with E, and deposited KRW 5 million as the down payment on February 23, 2013.

The Plaintiff completed the remaining construction before the end of June 2013, but the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 37,909,00 (=42,909,000 - 5 million). As such, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the payment of the said unpaid construction cost and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not conclude a contract for the remaining construction works among the instant construction works with the Plaintiff. However, at the time of performing construction works directly after E-Detention, the Defendant only requested the Plaintiff to do so and paid the construction cost of KRW 5 million. The Plaintiff did not even do so.

3. The following circumstances, which were revealed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, comprehensively taking into account whether the contract for the remaining construction works was concluded after the suspension of the construction work in this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the entire purport of the pleadings, were not prepared, namely, the contract for the remaining construction works which caused the construction work price to be 42,909,000, and the documents by the Defendant as to the conclusion of the contract for construction works and the construction price corresponding thereto were not prepared.