1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was subcontracted to the Defendant for the construction of a water-friendly space for the Seocho-dong Uniform Span that was contracted by the Defendant from the Jeonju-si and carried out the instant construction by July 31, 2009 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

In the meantime, the Defendant suspended and completed the instant construction. Until the Plaintiff discontinued the construction, the Plaintiff’s re-subcontracts to other companies during the instant construction work or used money as expenses incurred in relation to the said construction work is KRW 73,89,963. Of them, the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the re-subcontractors, etc. is KRW 47,779,520; KRW 3,050,000 for the amount paid by the Defendant; and KRW 23,070,443 for the unpaid amount.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,849,963 (=73,89,963 won - 3,050,000) and delay damages.

2. In the case where the contractor has to settle the construction cost due to the expiration of the construction contract without completion of the construction work, the construction cost to be paid by the contractor shall be calculated on the basis of the agreed contract amount and shall be determined by the method of multiplying the agreed contract amount by its maturity and ratio. The work cost to be paid by the contractor shall be determined by the method of determining the details of the agreed construction work and the contents of the work already completed part and the contents of the construction which have not yet been completed, and the construction cost to be incurred for the completion of the completed part as of the time when the obligation to pay the construction cost arises, assessed the construction cost for the completed part and the construction cost to be incurred for the completion of the completed part, and shall be

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da40995 Decided February 26, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 94Da31648 Decided January 23, 1996, etc.). The instant case seeks payment of the subcontract price that the Plaintiff had not received until the suspension of construction by entering into a subcontract with the Defendant.