1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 24, 2013, the Defendant agreed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to enter into a construction subcontract for each of the construction works (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction works”) between October 24, 2013 and October 30, 2014 with respect to reinforced concrete construction works (hereinafter referred to as “instant steel construction works”) located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Airport Office of Education, and between October 24, 2013 and October 24, 2013 to June 30, 2014, while entering into a construction subcontract for each of the construction works (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction subcontract”) with respect to the said steel construction works (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction subcontract”). The Defendant is provided by the Kangdong-dong, which is used for the said steel construction, to reduce the construction price in the amount of KRW 393,000,000.

B. On the other hand, on January 2, 2014, the Defendant entered into an additional construction subcontract with the Plaintiff, setting the construction cost of KRW 54,560,00 (including surtax) and the construction period from January 2, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

C. However, on March 31, 2014, the Defendant terminated the instant construction subcontract on the ground that the instant construction contract was delayed due to the delay in the construction due to the Plaintiff’s overdue wage, and thereby, the Plaintiff was forced to reduce the said construction work.

After that, the defendant transferred the above construction site from the plaintiff and paid direct wages to the workers, and completed the remaining construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 6, 9, 16 through 18 (including additional numbers), Gap's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties on the premise that the steel bars in this case should receive the agreed full amount of the construction cost regardless of the construction progress as a simple labor contract, and that the construction work in this case should be paid out of the actual construction cost 1,80,000,000 (=2,193,000,000 - 393,000,000) - the payment for the completed portion and the defendant spent during the follow-up work.