1. The Defendant paid KRW 30,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 330,00 as well as 6% per annum from August 17, 2017 to October 18, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff received a subcontract by setting the period of construction from May 12, 2014 to December 31, 2014, the contract price of KRW 303,60,000 (including value-added tax) among the installation works ordered by the Defendant from the Korea Highway Corporation to a local headquarters.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

As the volume of the construction work was added to the original amount during the course of performing the steel file harbor construction in accordance with the instant subcontract, the Plaintiff filed an application for inspection with the Defendant on November 2014, and entered into a subcontract modification agreement with the Defendant on November 20, 2014, setting the contract term of the instant subcontract as it is, and the contract term of the instant subcontract was, set as KRW 497,090,000 (including value-added tax) by increasing the contract amount.

(hereinafter “instant modified contract”). C.

The Plaintiff

B. At the time of the conclusion of the application for inspection and the contract for modification, the fixed load test in the way of using the reflect poppy among the details of the instant subcontract was set at three times (one thousand eight hundred thousand won per time) and nine times (three hundred thousand won per time).

However, as the number of re-examination increases, the Plaintiff actually proceeded 4 times from May 19, 2014 to July 15, 2014, and 14 times from the same time. D.

Of the construction cost of KRW 497,090,00, the Defendant paid KRW 490,373,632 to the Plaintiff by deducting the total amount of KRW 3,630,00 (including value-added tax) and the employment insurance premium of KRW 3,630,00 (including value-added tax) that was not paid by the Plaintiff, among the construction cost of KRW 497,09,00 according to the instant subcontract modification contract.

E. Afterwards, the Plaintiff asserted that it was added to the number of the re-examination set forth in the instant modified contract, which was more than the number of the re-examination set forth in the instant modified contract, and that it was more than five times for the re-examination, and the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and the Defendant additionally added the costs of re-examination to KRW 1,800,000 for the re-examination, and KRW 1,500,000 for the re-examination costs.