1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 39,905,118 (Additional Tax No. 10% separately) to the Defendant, among the new construction works and new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

C was the former representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

On July 24, 2015 and August 20, 2015, C shall be present at the date of pleading and make a statement as follows:

Around September 2014, the Plaintiff Company was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and the resignation on October 8, 2014 was retroactively made to work as the head of the Defendant Company’s site from the instant construction project around September 2014.

The defendant company paid the full labor cost, part of the ready-mixed price, and the steel supply price directly.

Plaintiff

The Company claims actual expenses invested in the instant construction work.

C In addition to the amount of the initial construction work in 2014 calculated in accordance with the budget of the Ministry of National Defense, approximately three million won was added in 2014.

In the first time, from the total construction cost of the defendant company and the approximate 284,827,800 to the 87% of the total construction cost of the defendant company 284,827,800.

However, the defendant company did not comply with the re-determination of the construction cost, because it is the same that the loss will occur.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute as to Gap evidence

2. The parties' assertion

A. On January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was contracted with the Defendant for a new construction work, and completed the construction work by November 2014, and issued a tax invoice on January 1, 2015, but the Defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 38,429,290.

The plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with the defendant, and again, it was possible to complete the construction of this case by granting a contract to a large number of subordinate businesses.

The plaintiff requested the defendant to prepare a contract on several occasions, but the defendant postponed the preparation of the contract and only claims the costs incurred by the plaintiff, not the total construction cost that was agreed to subcontract.

B. The defendant's assertion that the contract was not concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

The defendant shall make C as the site manager and shall be net.