1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following order for payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd., D Co., Ltd., and E (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) were awarded a contract by the F Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association for construction works related to the F Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project implemented in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu Seoul.

B. Around May 2016, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction works and the external infrastructure works outside the complex among the aforementioned construction works that C contracted by C from C (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

C. For the execution of the instant construction, the Defendant: (a) designated H as a field manager; and (b) performed the instant construction; (c) agreed that the payment of progress payment shall be reported to the head office and the Si/Gun/Gu; and (d) made a direct payment under the ratification of the construction.

On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-subcontract between H and H, under the name of the Defendant, to pay the construction cost of KRW 55,00,00 (excluding value-added tax) for the construction of commercial sewage, packing and transportation facilities outside the complex among the instant construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

E. The Plaintiff completed the construction work under the instant construction contract, and received KRW 5,521,100 in total from the Defendant for the transfer of KRW 29,882,00 on August 11, 2016, and KRW 25,639,10 on September 12, 2016 to the account and received payment for the construction cost.

F. On August 10, 2016, the Plaintiff issued each of the tax invoices of KRW 33,000,000 (the supply price of KRW 30,000,000,000) (the supply price of KRW 3,000), and the tax invoices of KRW 28,858,000 (the supply price of KRW 26,234,545,555) (the supply price of KRW 26,234,623,455) (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant tax invoices”) on August 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 2, 3-1 and 2, and the fact that there is no dispute

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the amount of KRW 55,00,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the value-added tax is separately paid.