1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2016, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation jointly awarded a contract for “C” remodeling works in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D with companies E, F, and G, and the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for part of the said works from Company F.

B. The Defendant re-subcontracted the subcontracted construction to several construction companies. Of that, the Plaintiff had the Defendant’s employees H remove the third floor operation office and re-subcontracted the construction work (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. After the completion of the instant construction, the Plaintiff received KRW 28,00,000 (including value-added tax) for the construction price from the Defendant on January 26, 2017, and KRW 28,000,000 (including value-added tax) for the total amount of KRW 8,000,000 on March 3, 2017. On March 29, 2017, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice for the remaining construction price of KRW 34,70,000 for the Defendant (including value-added tax) and requested the payment thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, testimony of H witness of this court and purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the main purport of the parties' assertion is that the defendant's employee H determined the construction cost of KRW 57,000,000 with the defendant and the construction cost of KRW 57,00 (excluding value-added tax) and completed the construction by sub-subcontracting the construction work, and the defendant should pay the plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 34,70,000

In this regard, the defendant argues that H did not have the authority to conclude the instant construction contract or to determine the construction cost at the time, and that there was also forgery of the balance certificate, and that there was no fact of concluding the instant re-subcontract as the construction cost of the plaintiff and its assertion.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence mentioned above 1 and the evidence stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been admitted.