A. On November 25, 2011, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a house of six-story size on the ground of Busan Young-gu C (hereinafter “instant construction”) to KRW 300 million for the construction cost (including value-added tax).

B. On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of the newly constructed building (hereinafter “instant building”) after performing the instant construction, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant building on June 1, 2012.

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 173 million from the Defendant, among the construction cost of this case, from the Defendant, and did not receive KRW 127 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim as to the unpaid construction cost, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 127 million, barring special circumstances.

[Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost of this case is KRW 30 million including value-added tax. However, according to the above facts and the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the construction cost of this case is KRW 300 million including value-added tax. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit) (2) The defendant alleged that the contractor of the construction of this case is not the plaintiff but D (hereinafter "D"), but the contractor of the construction of this case, which can be recognized by the above facts and the above evidence, although the defendant alleged that the contract of this case is not the plaintiff, the contractor of the construction of this case is not the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the actual execution of the construction of this case is the plaintiff, and the defendant actually paid part of the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff. ② The first contract of this case is the contractor, and the contract of this case was made as D, but this is not a construction business license of the plaintiff.