The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 12,110,108 as well as to the plaintiff on March 18, 2014.

A. The Defendant entered into a contract for the following construction with the non-stec construction company (hereinafter “non-stecopic construction”).

1) On January 31, 2012, the Defendant: (a) awarded a contract for the construction work of the “top and soil removal work among the sections of the B apartment construction work” at KRW 2,385,454,743 of the construction work price (hereinafter the “B construction work”); and (b) the said construction contract at the “B construction contract”.

(2) On October 19, 2012, the Defendant awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 20,636,00,00 (including value-added tax) for the C Housing Site Development Project (1-2 construction sections) and for the C Housing Site Development Project (1-2 sections).

(hereinafter referred to as the “C Construction Contract,” and “C Construction Contract,” b.

On September 4, 2013, the Defendant and the C C C Construction terminated the C Construction Contract at the request of the Cerc construction to cancel the C Construction Contract, and on the same day, in relation to C Construction, the Defendant drafted a “Agreement on the Termination and Settlement of Construction Contract” to confirm that the Defendant does not pay the construction cost any longer to Berc Construction.

(hereinafter referred to as the “C Settlement Agreements”).

However, the CB construction contract was terminated only, and the B construction contract was still maintained, and the C construction contract was defaulted on September 11, 2013. On September 12, 2013, the Defendant sent a written notice to the effect that the B construction contract was terminated as of September 11, 2013 on the ground of the default of D&D construction. The written notice contains KRW 139,341,000, the unpaid construction cost of B construction is stated in the written notice.

(hereinafter referred to as “B Notice of Settlement”) d.

On the other hand, on August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) a notary public with respect to Madice Construction was based on the executory exemplification of a notarial deed No. 757 of the 2013 Document No. 757 of the 2013, Sungwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch 200,000,000 won; and (b) a debtor’s Madice Construction.