1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,100,000 as well as 6% per annum from January 23, 2018 to June 21, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. On November 9, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a subcontract agreement (the instant subcontract agreement) with the Defendant to perform wooden works among the child care center interior works on the third floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul and E-ground buildings (the instant interior works).

The construction cost under the instant subcontract is KRW 200,000,000 for labor goods, and the total construction cost was set at KRW 55,000,000 for the first 275 items. According to the construction process, the Plaintiff, in addition to the original scheduled construction work, claimed additional labor as KRW 87 on March 26, 2018. However, even though the amount claimed as the actual additional construction cost is KRW 14,00,000 for the amount claimed as the actual construction cost, it is deemed that the Plaintiff asserts that the additional construction cost is KRW 70 ( KRW 14,00,000 for 20,200 for 20,000) as the basis thereof.

of 69,000,000 won (=(275 goods)x 200,000 won) and value-added tax 4,500,000 won by the issuance of the tax invoice shall be paid from the Defendant.

However, since the Defendant paid only KRW 43,00,000 as the price for the instant subcontract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 30,500,000 (= KRW 73,500,000 - KRW 43,00,000) to the Plaintiff and damages for delay.

2. On November 9, 2016, comprehensively taking account of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that on November 9, 2016, the plaintiff entered into a labor contract between the defendant and the defendant who runs the tegrative business with the name of "F" to provide labor for performing the tegrative work among the instant tegrative construction works and to be paid the construction cost of KRW 200,000, which is set forth as labor allowance of KRW 248 in relation to the above tegrative construction works, and the plaintiff provided labor for 248 items and issued a tax invoice for the construction

However, Gap 3, 7-.