Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) divided the factory pipe painting construction work of Cheongyang-gun D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) that was supplied under the name of the Defendant into shares and agreed to jointly perform the factory pipe painting construction work.

Therefore, from July 2018 to October 10 of the same year, the Plaintiff completed the installation painting construction and accordingly, requested the Defendant to settle the pertinent construction cost, but the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 129,50,000,000, which remains after deducting KRW 25,000 from the total construction cost of KRW 160,000 (the total construction cost of KRW 160,000,000 from the amount of KRW 135,50,000,000, which is the remainder after deducting the material cost directly borne by the Defendant from the total construction cost of KRW 160,000).

B. The Defendant received from Defendant D, the prime contractor, the amount of KRW 250,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the factory pipeline construction work, and subcontracted the portion equivalent to KRW 144,583,00 (including value-added tax, KRW 159,041,30) among them by applying the subcontract rate of KRW 85% to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the total construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 135,185,105 (i.e., KRW 159,041,30 x 85% x value added tax).

However, since the material cost directly borne by the Defendant is KRW 25,00,000, and the construction cost paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 129,50,000,000, the Defendant would rather pay the Plaintiff more than the construction cost.

Of the construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff 162,123,946, ① Equipment cost (6,864,00 won) paid to E cannot be recognized as the cost incurred in the instant construction. ② Value-added tax (1,453,900 won) included in equipment cost should be paid for the entire construction cost, including equipment cost, by the Defendant, in consideration of the fact that the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount added to value-added tax again, the value-added tax should be excluded. ③ Of labor cost, the Plaintiff is one’s own labor cost.