1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,365,631 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from June 16, 2015 to January 15, 2016.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including serial numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff on February 27, 2013 that the defendant would supply labor to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's workers (hereinafter "the contract of this case"). The defendant did not specify the amount at the time. ② After the plaintiff, the defendant agreed that the labor cost provided by the plaintiff was KRW 200,342,00, value-added tax was KRW 20,034,20,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 25, KRW 205, KRW 30, KRW 205, KRW 30, KRW 25,200, KRW 305, March 31, 2013.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since he claimed labor costs less than those paid to the actual workers and paid the difference to the defendant, thereby causing damage to the defendant.

(b) make decisions on the grounds of deduction or offset. (b)

Judgment

According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 12 and 13, the fact that the plaintiff received more than KRW 2,668,569 from the defendant is recognized, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff received more than KRW 2,668,569 from the defendant, and there is no other evidence. Thus, the defendant's assertion is within the scope of recognition.