The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2, 2016, the Defendant, such as the instant construction contract, etc., determined and subcontracted the construction period of machinery installation and piping work of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among D Co., Ltd. supply and demand from C Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff as KRW 830 million (excluding value-added tax) from October 24, 2016 to January 31, 2017, and the construction cost of KRW 830 million (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction project on the grounds that the Plaintiff had to perform, and thereafter, the Defendant directly executed and completed the instant construction project.

B. As a result of the Defendant’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a debt against the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for confirmation of the existence of a debt with this Court Decision 2018GaGa74348, and asserted that “The Defendant does not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff the construction price to the Plaintiff in relation to the instant construction contract, since the Defendant already paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 808,094,277, since the amount of the construction cost is KRW 699,084,100, the amount of the construction cost at the time of the suspension of the instant construction work at December 29, 2016, exceeds 76.57%.”

In the above lawsuit, the Plaintiff, other than the instant construction until December 29, 2016, added the PE pipeline work, SUPPOT additional work, and the PK-1260 snow removal work at the Defendant’s request, provided that the Plaintiff’s crypt construction cost is KRW 969,594,230, and the amount of materials paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant was KRW 60 million. Since only KRW 808,094,277 was paid by the Defendant, the Defendant argued that the Defendant was liable to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

On November 20, 2019, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the period of work as of December 29, 2016, exceeds KRW 808,094,277, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendant, or that the period of work exceeds KRW 969,594,230, or that the period of work exceeds KRW 90,00,00,000, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the construction cost related to the instant construction contract against the Plaintiff is 90%.