1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 33,246,40 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from February 8, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a restaurant in the name of “C” on the Kimpo-si B and the first floor of “C”.

B. From February 2016 to October 20, 2016, the Defendant carried out the “E” construction in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. From March 2016 to September 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to provide meals to the Defendant’s employees, etc. working at the instant construction site and receive meal costs from the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not receive meal costs of KRW 33,246,400 on September 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 33,246,400 payable meal expenses and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 8, 2018 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, to the day of complete payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s ASEAN, as the Defendant’s employee, took charge of accounting affairs, such as managing human resources in the instant construction site and claiming labor costs. On September 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff’s claim for meal costs for employees who did not actually work in collusion with the Plaintiff and F. 2) F received the total amount of KRW 6,358,000 from April 2016 to August 2016 from the Plaintiff’s bank account in the name of “C” operated by the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff, in collusion with F, acquired the said money in collusion with the Plaintiff, he/she would offset the said money from the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

B. On September 2016, 201, the statement of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 regarding the assertion of false claim 1, which the Plaintiff sought, is against the worker whose meal cost was not actually worked.