1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant contracted C (hereinafter “instant construction”) from Busan City to KRW 354,948,857 (including value-added tax, and KRW 322,680,773 after deducting value-added tax).

(2) On June 2015, the instant construction project increased the price of KRW 429,330,00 (including value-added tax) following the alteration of design (hereinafter “the primary design”) and increased the price of KRW 608,30,000 (including value-added tax) by December 2015.

B. The Plaintiff’s discontinuance of sewage supply construction (1) The Defendant subcontracted the entire construction of the instant construction to the Plaintiff.

The construction cost to be received by the Plaintiff was 82% of the amount calculated by deducting taxes and social insurance premiums from the construction cost received by the Defendant from the Si of Busan (93% of the additional construction cost as a result of a change in the design price).

(2) On July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff retired from office during the instant construction.

Until then, the defendant paid the total amount of KRW 139,255,068 as the subcontract price by the method of paying the plaintiff's wages, equipment user fees, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 12-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings [the plaintiff brought the materials of KRW 20 million which was paid for the subcontract price to the defendant, and thus, should be deducted from the amount paid for that amount. The plaintiff's representative director filed a complaint against the defendant's theft of the materials of KRW 10 million by the representative member, but it can only be known that the facts were not prosecuted for suspicion. The defendant's payment of KRW 139,255,068 to the plaintiff is insufficient to reverse the fact that the defendant paid the plaintiff the construction price of KRW 139,255,068].2.

A. When the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work of this case was completed, the period and proportion of the portion corresponding to the first construction cost were 44.2%.

and (1) 1.