1. As to KRW 28,430,263 and KRW 26,30,00 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from December 6, 2018 to December 11, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff, who runs a gas facility design and construction business, participated in the bidding after confirming the Defendant’s open competitive bidding notice, and entered into a contract for urban gas conversion of B-building (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant for construction period from February 1, 2018 to June 1, 2018, setting the construction cost as KRW 69,30,000 (69 households).

B. On May 24, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the completion inspection for the remaining 70 households, excluding five households (Chos, Dhos, E, Fhos, and G) who refused the completion inspection.

C. On December 5, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 43 million to the Plaintiff.

At the time of entering into the instant construction contract, H filed a complaint against I and J, who was the chairperson of the Defendant at the time of entering into the instant construction contract, due to occupational breach of trust against the Defendant, on the ground that “The Defendant did not enter into a contract with the lowest bidder in the competitive bidding, and thereby inflicted damage equivalent to the difference between the construction cost and the Plaintiff’s construction cost.” However, the Jinju District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition of lack of evidence, on November 6, 2018, on the ground that “I and J cannot be deemed to have entered into the construction contract at an unreasonably high price, and the mere fact that the Defendant did not simply select an enterprise that submitted the lowest estimate compared to the estimate amount cannot be recognized as a crime of occupational breach of trust.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 10, 11, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to complete all construction works under the instant construction contract.

However, in the case of five households which have refused the completion inspection, the completion inspection was not possible, and in the case of G, only the failure to carry out the internal pipeline construction by refusing the construction work.

In the case of G, only an indoor pipeline shall be installed, and an unregistered construction shall be performed.