1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The summary of the case (based on the recognition of the facts) was without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, fact-finding results on the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City Northbuk-gu, the fact-finding results on the Gyeongdo architect office, the fact-finding results on the Gyeongdo architect office, and the purport of the entire pleadings was to newly construct four small apartment units (32 units per 9 floor, 128 units) in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, etc., and around April 2012, the defendant subcontracted the integration, communication, fire-fighting, and machinery fire-fighting (hereinafter “the instant construction”) of the construction cost of KRW 300,000.

C was suspended from the instant construction work on October 2012, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff with the construction period from October 6, 2012 to the completion date, and the construction cost of KRW 320,000,000 for the instant construction work. As stated in the attached sheet, the Defendant agreed on the termination of the contract, the portion (C) completed by the Plaintiff’s commencement of the construction, and the succession to the portion of the materials, personnel expenses, etc.

The new construction was completed on the eightth floor, and accordingly the total number of households was reduced to a total of 104 units (8th 26 units per unit).

Plaintiff

The summary of the claim: The plaintiff performed the construction work equivalent to KRW 143,351,364 until the construction work of this case is suspended.

However, since the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 63 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 80,351,364 to the Plaintiff as the unpaid construction cost of the part executed by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion: the construction cost to be deducted from the part executed by C is KRW 5 million.

Since the construction of this case was reduced, the total construction cost is only KRW 250 million (2.5 million per household construction cost).

After the Plaintiff discontinued the instant construction work, the Defendant could conclude the remainder construction work by subcontracting to a third party at KRW 200 million.

Rather, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction price in excess.

2. Since the instant construction was suspended during the map, the Plaintiff shall be paid to it.