In the case of the new construction works between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 1, 2017, the terms of the installation subcontract are as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to subcontract construction cost of KRW 47,300,000 (including value-added tax) for the said construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on and around December 1, 2017, after receiving a contract for the new construction of D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. At the Plaintiff’s request for direct payment, Diplomatic Association paid KRW 4,00,000 to the Defendant as the instant construction cost on December 14, 2017, and KRW 18,90,000 on March 13, 2018, and paid KRW 4,00,000 to E who performed urban gas construction works on April 19, 2018.

C. On March 25, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 4,711,061 as the remaining construction cost of the instant case with the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 749, 2019, with the Defendant as the principal deposit.

On June 13, 2018 and June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, conducted installation works of the third floor toilet attachment, the third floor toilet attachment, the second floor toilet exhauster, etc. during the instant construction, and the second floor hot water and miscellaneous materials, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 20, 22 to 24, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. After concluding the instant contract on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant did not complete part of the instant construction, and accordingly, spent KRW 4,635,400 to the Plaintiff directly proceed with the remaining construction.

The plaintiff asserts that even though the defendant paid or deposited all the remaining construction cost of KRW 41,801,060, excluding the expenses incurred in the remaining construction, the defendant remains unpaid construction cost. Therefore, the plaintiff's confirmation that there is no construction cost of this case against the defendant is nonexistent.

B. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s consideration of the construction price based on the Defendant’s 1st century; (b) there is no dispute between the parties; or (c) the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Articles 16 through 21