1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case by the court of first instance is as follows, on the 2nd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, that “the 6th day of February 29, 2010” is as follows; “the 6th day of February 19, 2010”; “the 17th day of October 17, 2012” is as “the 17th day of December 2010”; and “the 8th day of February 23, 2011” in “B” in “the 10th day of February 23, 2011, respectively, and the 7th to 11th day of February 5 [3] following the 10th day of the 10th day, as well as the 6th day of February 19, 2010 as the 1st day of the first instance judgment, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In light of the purport of the argument as a result of the fact-finding on Gap's evidence Nos. 6, 10, and 11 and the fact-finding on the Private Sector Audit Team of the court of first instance, the construction cost calculation statement of this case states that "the direct labor cost multiplied by 1.49%, by 2.43%, is a health insurance premium, and the direct labor cost multiplied by 2.43%," and "the criteria for the application of the insurance premium for social insurance (No. 2009-732 of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs notice)" that was enforced at the time of the public notice of the tender of this case, the health insurance premium of this case is applied to the direct labor cost multiplied by 1.49%, the national pension premium of this case multiplied by 2.43%, and the fact that the health insurance premium of this case and the national pension premium of this case is more than the insurance premium actually paid by the defendant

However, according to Article 22(5) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 26-2(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the employer may settle the excess amount in cases where the national pension premiums under the National Pension Act and the health insurance premiums under the National Health Insurance Act specified in the contract amount calculation statement are more than the insurance premiums actually paid, and there is no provision stating that “the excess amount should be settled.” Thus, the above provision and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs