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

A. From the Defendant’s new construction works, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the 3rd, 8, 9, 10th, and 10th, and completed all construction works from October 8, 2013 to April 12, 2014.

B. At the time, the Plaintiff agreed to receive an amount calculated by setting a unit price for the volume of the work performed by the Defendant and the Plaintiff. However, since the Plaintiff’s scope of construction work cannot be known to some extent, the Plaintiff received a certain portion of the construction work first, and then paid the remaining amount when calculating the total amount after the completion of the construction work.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received both the construction cost of the 8,9,10th and the 3rd and upper floors, but did not receive the construction cost. The construction cost is KRW 96,715,300, including the additional amount not stated above 19,280,476 won in the construction volume table and unit price, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said construction cost to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff, from October 2013, entered into a contract with the employees of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Team members”) and the Defendant, while entering into a contract with the three-story and the 8,9,10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 8,9,10th and the 10th and the

B. Furthermore, at the time, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the construction cost according to the quantity and unit price of the Defendant and agreed to accept the instant construction work. We examine whether the said price is the amount as alleged by the Plaintiff.

In light of the purport of Gap evidence 1-1 to 7, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 7, and Eul evidence 3-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of witness D, the plaintiff requested the defendant to assign workers to the construction site of this case from D entrusted with the management of workers on the first floor and the third floor of the construction site of this case. From October 2013 to the third floor of the construction site of this case, the plaintiff worked together with the plaintiff team members.