1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on construction works with the Defendant for “Mai Construction among the Newly constructed multi-household housing construction works in Gwangju Ariju (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

[Construction Subcontract Contract] Project owner: The name of construction project owner B: The name of construction project for new construction of multi-household housing in Gwangju-ri multi-household housing (two multi-household housing units other than Seoul): The name of construction project: The place of marina construction project in Gwangju-ri multi-household housing construction (two multi-household housing units other than Seoul): the contract amount on August 20, 2016; the contract amount on October 31, 2016: the contract amount on October 31, 2016: 852,630,000 won

(a) Advance payment: No one; and

(b) Payment method (3) within 7 days from the date of receipt of the object: 100% in cash, bill 0% (4) and other matters: direct payment by the ordering person, if necessary, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the object; and

B. On December 5, 2016, while the Plaintiff was performing construction works under the instant contract, the Plaintiff discontinued construction works and accepted them at the site, and thereafter the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is KRW 538,061,759 for the construction cost in proportion to the amount that the Plaintiff ceased to perform by December 5, 2016.

However, the defendant paid only some of the construction cost.

The Defendant claimed the payment of the unpaid construction cost, 261,265,259 won, and damages for delay, which have not been paid by the date of closing the argument in this case.

3. Determination

(a) The assertion on the completion of work in a contract for work and the burden of proof are against the contractor seeking the payment of remuneration for the result of work;

(Supreme Court Decision 94Da26684, 94Da26691 delivered on November 22, 1994).

There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant shall pay the construction cost according to the ratio of the base amount.

In addition, this case between the plaintiff and the defendant on August 20, 2016.