1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(1) In relation to the D Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in Busan Dong-gu, the Defendant awarded a contract for removal and remaining disposal work from D Housing Redevelopment and Rearrangement Project Association (hereinafter “D Housing Redevelopment and Development Project Association”) to the Plaintiff on May 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a subcontract by setting the construction cost of KRW 489,122,348 (including value-added tax) on the ground and underground structure removal and waste disposal work on the size of 17,174,71 square meters and the Plaintiff on May 17, 2015 (hereinafter “instant subcontracted project”). From the date of commencement of the construction period to the date of completion of construction

(2) In the case of the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the Plaintiff’s wages and expenses, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff, on the part of the Plaintiff, to the end of the period until the date of the instant subcontract; the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff within 30 days after the completion of the construction; the Defendant shall submit a written confirmation of waste disposal to the Defendant at the time of the application for the remainder of the construction; the time of the submission of a written confirmation of waste disposal; and the payment of the completed construction shall be carried over. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the part of the Plaintiff (Article 6(13)

Secondly, the Plaintiff received 293,473,400 won from the Defendant among the construction cost of the subcontracted project in this case, which is equivalent to 60% of the contract cost of the subcontracted project in this case. Since March 2016, the Plaintiff did not proceed with the construction on the ground that the Defendant received construction cost equivalent to 70% of the construction cost from the non-party partnership and did not pay the Plaintiff.

x. The Defendant, around June 24, 2016, suspended the instant construction by refusing the Defendant’s demand for the installation of removal equipment even when the Plaintiff received the construction cost higher than 49.35%, even though the construction cost of the instant construction work was completed by that time.