A. On February 25, 2013, Pungsa Co., Ltd. contracted to the Defendant for the creation of Pungsa Co., Ltd., and the Defendant agreed to re-subcontract the said construction work (hereinafter “instant construction”) in a lump sum to the Plaintiff and to settle the subcontract price later.

B. In the process of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff received KRW 27,500,000 from the Defendant on March 28, 2013, and KRW 10,000 on June 14, 2013, respectively, and paid KRW 4,231,700 on behalf of the Defendant, separate from the instant construction project.

C. After completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the instant construction cost of KRW 85,00,000 (Additional Tax No.), and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 60,231,70 (including Additional Tax) (=the construction cost of KRW 93,50,000 (including Additional Tax) - KRW 27,50,000 - KRW 10,000,000 for materials substituted for KRW 4,231,70).

On June 29, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 66,00,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff on September 17, 2013, and KRW 10,000,00 on December 27, 2013 respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 14, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,231,700 for the remainder of the construction project (i.e., KRW 60,231,700 - KRW 15,000,000 - KRW 10,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 7, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is obvious that the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the final amount is KRW 54,951,337 as a result of the re-settlement of the construction cost of this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the entries in the evidence No. 2-1, 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the claim of this case is justified.