1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's direct claim against the defendant

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant agreed with C, a representative of the defendant, to pay the price for the supply of human resources, and supplied human resources at the construction site of this case. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff money as stated in the purport of the claim, which is the price for the supply of human resources.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim for collection amount

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since only KRW 66,00,000 among the construction cost of KRW 132,00,000 under the contract of this case (including value-added tax) was paid, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, who is the person entitled to collect the claim of this case, a delay damages for the amount of KRW 43,098,154, which the plaintiff received the seizure and collection order of this case, and KRW 39,230,00 among them, within the scope of KRW 66,00,00,000.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not issue a tax invoice for KRW 60,00,000 for the remainder of the construction cost to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay KRW 6,00,000,000, which is the value added tax for the remainder of the construction cost. As such, the scope to be paid to the Plaintiff, the collection right holder, shall be limited to KRW 60,000,00. The scope to be paid to the Plaintiff, who is the collection right holder, shall be limited to KRW 60,80,00,00 for the above unpaid construction cost, which is KRW 60,00,00,000, which is due to D’s failure to perform the instant construction in full, thereby deducting KRW 50,806,909 from the delayed construction cost, the construction cost of this case to be paid to D shall remain 9,193,09