1. The Defendant paid KRW 2,670,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 6% per annum from December 8, 2013 to July 17, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who performs cryp and cryp in the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person who engages in cryp construction business with the trade name of "D".

B. From September 2009 to September 201, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for a construction site, such as the Main Bae Store that the Defendant contracted from the Defendant and performed.

C. The construction cost during the above period is KRW 214,200,000. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 211,530,000 and value added tax of KRW 12,00,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the said money and delay damages, since the unpaid construction cost and the unpaid value-added tax incurred as a result of the project owner’s request during the construction site and the unpaid additional construction cost incurred at the construction site from the Defendant’s subcontractor’s subcontract from April 2012 to September 2013, 2013, totaled KRW 56,025,00 as of September 16, 2013. The Defendant asserts that the current unpaid construction cost is KRW 2,670,00,000, and the additional construction cost at the request of the owner at the site and the value-added tax is not recognized and all settled.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the construction cost as above, the Plaintiff’s remainder after receiving a subcontract from the Defendant from around September 2009 to around September 2, 2009 for the cathere and cat construction work, is KRW 2,670,000.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay the additional construction cost that the project owner ordered the additional construction site. However, in light of the fact that the additional construction site is where the additional construction site and the amount of the additional construction cost is not specified, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff claimed the additional construction cost only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 (including the serial number).