1. The Defendant’s KRW 98,885,470 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 16, 2017 to November 16, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Cheongju District Court for the claim for construction cost (hereinafter “Schan Construction”) against the Cheongju District Court (hereinafter “Schan Construction”). The Plaintiff asserted that, despite the completion of the instant construction work, the Cchan Construction, which was awarded a contract by the Hachan-gun, was verbally subcontracted from the Hachan Construction, and completed the instant construction work, it did not receive KRW 98,885,470, out of the construction cost. In addition, the Plaintiff claimed that, despite completion of the instant construction work contracted by Bochan-gun with the implied permission of the construction cost, it was unjust for the Plaintiff to recover the amount equivalent to the said amount without paying the said KRW 98,885,470, the amount equivalent to the construction cost.

B. For this reason, under a package subcontract agreement with the Defendant, the cultural heritage repair business was registered under the agreement with the Defendant, the instant construction was awarded a lump sum subcontract to the Defendant after receiving the contract under the name of the sponsors Construction, and thereafter, the Defendant granted a subcontract to another construction business operator and completed the construction, and the Plaintiff did not conclude a contract regarding the instant construction.

C. On November 5, 2015, the Defendant appeared in the court as a witness of the Plaintiff, and testified. The Defendant stated that there was no means to receive a blanket subcontract for the instant construction from the Supporting Construction, and that there was no re-subcontract for the instant construction to the Plaintiff.

On February 18, 2016, the court of first instance sentenced the judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims. The reason for that judgment is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement with the Defendant related to the instant construction project, and rather, as alleged in the support construction, the remainder of the construction cost calculated by deducting 6% of the construction cost from the management cost after receiving the repair work under the name of the supporting construction between the Defendant and the Defendant.