1. The Defendant’s KRW 71,850,620 as well as 6% per annum from July 17, 2018 to July 10, 2019, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2017, the Plaintiff, while running a construction business with the trade name of “D,” contracted a construction project for landscaping facilities from the Defendant, including news block and boundary stone of the new E-style, Gyeongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The content of the instant construction contract is to pay the labor cost to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff invested human resources and completed construction as materials supplied by the Defendant.

B. The head of the Defendant’s site office directly prepared a monthly labor expense statement stating the names of the daily workers mobilized by the Plaintiff, total number of working days, etc., and confirmed it to the Plaintiff, and reported it to the Defendant.

On August 1, 2017, the defendant replaced the site director from F to G.

C. According to the above statement of labor cost, the Plaintiff invested a total of KRW 155,137,520 won, and completed construction work under the instant construction contract around August 20, 2017. The Defendant paid KRW 83,286,90 to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 7 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties: the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 71,850,620 (=155,137,520 - 83,286,900), and damages for delay from September 1, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is after the completion of construction.

Defendant: The Plaintiff claimed labor cost in collusion with F, etc. by falsely stating the number of workers and the number of working days in the statement of labor cost in collusion with F, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. In full view of the purport of the Defendant’s statement or video as set forth in No. 6-1 of the evidence No. 6-1, it is recognized that there are many days of disagreements between the number of workers indicated in the statement of labor cost prepared by F in the Defendant’s On-Site Director F and the number of workers indicated in the material prepared by H Co., Ltd.

However, the testimony of the witness F is the whole purport of the pleading.