1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,375,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 11, 2016 to December 1, 2017.

1. Basic facts: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the Defendant provided workers at the Jeju Construction site to perform construction works by subcontracting from Hyundai Construction (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”); (b) the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction site from February 2016 to June 24, 2016, by inserting his/her employees and investing workers at the instant construction site; and (c) the Defendant entered into a wooden construction project by inserting them to his/her employees; and (d) the Defendant entered into the Plaintiff on March 10, 2016 after having been serving as a policeman on February 10, 2016;

4.14.10 million won;

4.27.15 million won;

5.25.25 million won;

5. The fact that a total of KRW 80 million (including value-added tax) including KRW 10 million has been paid does not conflict between the parties.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a labor contract with the Defendant, setting the construction cost of KRW 200 million.

However, the defendant demanded the reduction of the construction cost late and the additional construction cost was not paid on June 24, 2016.

At that time, 60% or more of the construction period was 60% or more, and there were many additional construction works that were not in the first bidding details.

Due to the nature of the wooden Corporation and the additional construction, it is difficult to accurately calculate the plaintiff's ability to prepare for the existing construction cost, and the defendant would pay the construction cost by calculating it per day.

If the plaintiff calculates the amount of wages that the plaintiff should receive from the defendant as the number and work days of input, the amount of 123,075,000 won is 72,727,273 won except value-added tax out of 80,000,000 won already paid, and 50,347,727 won is 50,347,727 won, and such money and damages for delay are claimed.

In preparation for the determination that the construction contract was not concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted the conjunctive claim of unjust enrichment. However, the Defendant did not dispute the fact that the construction contract was concluded with the Plaintiff after the preparatory brief dated August 10, 2017. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not separately examined.