1. The Defendant’s KRW 157,655,640 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from June 9, 2016 to August 10, 2017, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff has been awarded a contract with the Defendant for the “sn beamline production and installation works” (hereinafter “instant construction works”) of the business model Hadice of a company A (hereinafter “instant construction”) at the cost of KRW 433,400,00 (including value-added tax) and awarded a contract for the “snickline production and installation works” at the cost of KRW 181,50,000, and entered into a contract for the “snick Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “nive comprehensive construction”).

B. Around March 2016, the Giman General completed the instant construction.

C. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 253,000,000 among the construction cost of the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) During the construction process of the instant construction cost, the additional construction was made under the Defendant’s direction. The additional construction cost incurred KRW 2,925,00, KRW 1,615,00, KRW 1,615,00, KRW 200, KRW 339,756, KRW 9,879,756, and KRW 9,879,756, which was the sum of the construction cost installed with disabilities installed. Of these, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 8,470,00 (including value-added tax) paid for the remainder of the construction cost adjusted at actual cost. 2) The Defendant sought payment of KRW 253,40,000, KRW 43,400,000, the remainder of the construction cost paid by the Defendant, deducted the construction cost of KRW 180,400,00.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) No matter how the Plaintiff instructed the additional construction cost, and the details of the additional construction cannot be acknowledged. 2) During the process of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost for the so-called Multilaters and its sub-contractors, and there was a situation in which the sub-contractor demanded a direct payment due to the fact that the sub-contractor did not have paid the construction cost. Accordingly, the Defendant directly paid the said sub-contractors the construction cost, wages, etc.

In addition, the non-execution part of the plaintiff was directly executed by the defendant or ordered a third party to execute the non-execution part.

The defendant shall include the part directly executed by the defendant or claimed to have been executed by a third party.