1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,214,979 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 6, 2013 to February 26, 2014, and the following.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was subcontracted by the Defendant to the Environment Improvement Corporation, a part of the Environment Improvement Corporation, which was under way in the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government A, and performed the said construction until March 2013.

However, the defendant paid only part of the cost of the construction work performed by the plaintiff, and did not pay the remaining KRW 44,214,979.

Therefore, the claim of this case was brought about.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff performed construction work only until February 2013, and the Defendant settled the entire construction cost by February 2013, which the Plaintiff performed, and thereafter the Corporation directly performed.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant awarded a subcontract to the Plaintiff during the process of performing environmental improvement work, which was being performed in the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government A. (2) The Plaintiff had Nonparty B work as the site manager of the instant construction work, and performed the said construction work from May 2012 to March 2013.

The plaintiff prepared a detailed statement of the monthly work as of the 25th day of each month based on the daily work daily work log and output daily, and submitted it to C as the head of the defendant's site. The above C reviewed this, and submitted a tax invoice for the construction work cost of the fixed month to the defendant on the 10th day of the following month if the details of the work are determined, the plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the construction cost of the fixed month and submitted it to the defendant. The defendant paid the progress payment to the plaintiff 75 days after the date on which the plaintiff

3) The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for totaling KRW 1,383,415,00 (including value added tax) over ten times based on the nature of the period from May 2012 to February 25, 2013, and the Defendant settled the said period construction cost to the Plaintiff following the confirmation of the nature of the period. Even after the 10th period period, the Plaintiff continued to perform construction works by March 25, 2013. (4) The Defendant, via the site manager C around the end of March 2013.