1. The Defendant’s KRW 141,898,108 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from March 12, 2016 to October 11, 2017.

Basic Facts

A. The plaintiff is a company that aims at the construction business of steel structure, etc., and the defendant is a company that aims at the construction business.

B. On June 3, 2015, the Defendant, from the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor, determined “B new construction works” as the contract amount of KRW 2,816,00,000 (including value-added tax) from June 15, 2015 to November 30, 2015, and received contracts.

C. On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the steel framed among the “B-built construction” (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant to the construction period from June 15, 2015 to August 30, 2015, with the contract price of KRW 775,50,000 (i.e., the value of supply at KRW 705,000,000, value of value-added tax of KRW 705,50,000).

Although the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, the Defendant paid only KRW 275,000,000 as construction price, and KRW 220,000,000 on August 28, 2015, to the Plaintiff as construction price.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts established prior to the determination of the grounds for a claim as a whole of the pleadings, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), and the facts established prior to the determination of the grounds for a claim as to the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the payment of the agreed construction cost (=75,500,000 won - 275,000,000 won - 220,000,000 won) and damages for delay.

The defendant asserts that there is no right to claim the payment of construction cost as to the defendant's assertion, and the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant's intervenor agreed that the defendant would simply deliver the construction cost to the plaintiff, so long as the defendant's intervenor did not pay the construction cost to the defendant, the plaintiff does not have the right to

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2, 3-2, 4, and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's assertion that the part of the construction work should be deducted is the defendant.