1. As for the construction of Geumcheon Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff, from July 1, 2015 to November 28, 2016, the amount of KRW 3,290,000 to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Summary

A. On April 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works that the Plaintiff receives KRW 42,000,000 from Defendant Gold Construction (hereinafter “instant construction works”) (hereinafter “instant contract for construction works”).

The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work around June 2015.

Nevertheless, Defendant Gold Construction’s KRW 28,200,00 among the construction cost, while the Plaintiff received KRW 24,910,000 among the construction cost of KRW 42,00,000, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 17,090,000 (=42,000,000 - 42,910,000) based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, but the Plaintiff claimed KRW 28,200,00,00, which is the amount equivalent to the labor cost of the instant construction (see respectively stated in subparagraphs A through 6) paid by the Plaintiff with respect to the instant construction work, as the remainder of the construction cost.

Since Defendant Geum Construction does not pay the Plaintiff, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 28,200,000 and the delay damages.

B. If the construction project of this case is not a party to the contract of the construction project of this case, the construction project owner of this case is the party to the contract of the construction project of this case. Thus, the construction project owner of this case bears the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the remainder amount of the construction project of this case and the delay damages.

Judgment

In relation to the claim against Defendant Geum Construction, according to the respective statements and arguments set forth in Nos. 8, 9, and 1 of the parties to the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant Geum Construction around April 2015. The evidence submitted by the Defendant Geum Construction alone is insufficient to reverse it, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 14, witness C and D's partial testimony, and the whole pleadings, as to the claim for construction cost upon completion of the instant construction project, the plaintiff from April 2015 to April 2015.