2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells telecommunications equipment.

B. On December 23, 2010, the committee for supporting the forced mobilization investigation and the victims of overseas compulsory mobilization under the Defendant’s control (hereinafter “the committee of this case”) concluded a construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 23, 2010 by requesting the Public Procurement Service to vicariously perform the following duties: (a) the construction contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

[The contents of the instant construction contract (explor) construction site: The name of the Busan Southern-gu A project: Amount of construction project (communication): 940,288,617: The date of commencement of the instant committee: the scheduled date of completion of the construction project: December 28, 2012.

C. The Plaintiff commenced construction on December 30, 2010, but during the construction process, the scheduled completion date was postponed on October 2, 2013 due to the circumstances on the part of the Defendant’s side during the construction process, and the scheduled completion date was postponed on October 2, 2013. Thereafter, the scheduled completion date of construction due to the reasons on the part of the Defendant was extended on April 30, 2014, and the construction period was extended by 488 days (around 16 months) more than the originally scheduled.

D. After completion of the relevant construction project in accordance with the final scheduled completion plan, the Plaintiff sought payment of the indirect construction cost (as indicated in attached Table 1; hereinafter referred to as “instant indirect construction cost”) corresponding to the extended construction period on several occasions, but the Defendant refused payment thereof.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking reimbursement of damages equivalent to the above amount on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6 evidence, Eul 20 evidence (including numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 9 (including a serial number), each of the following circumstances revealed by the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the extension of the scheduled date for completion of a project, was solely due to the circumstances on the part of the defendant. This was due to the plaintiff's input of additional human resources and the payment of expenses incurred thereby, the plaintiff originally intended to add two additional inputs, accepted the request of the Public Procurement Service, and accepted one of the minimum number of persons. The Public Procurement Service approved the plan through the procedure of hearing the opinion of the Committee on Nov. 14, 2013, after receiving the plaintiff's report on the plan for human resource input, and the calculation details of the attached Table Nos. 1 list are excessive and not deemed excessive, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by his air due to the extension of the contract and related Acts and subordinate statutes (Articles 73 and 76 of the Government's tender and contract execution standards).

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

In regard to this, the defendant defense that he paid the plaintiff the payment for the completion of each class of money, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the payment was made (in accordance with relevant evidence, it seems that the payment for the completion that the plaintiff received does not include the indirect construction cost of this case), and the defendant did not bear the responsibility for payment since the contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the indirect construction cost of this case. However, in this case, the defendant's claim for the payment of damages, which is not the contract amount, is without any reason in itself, and it is not possible to seek the payment since the plaintiff granted the trust that the plaintiff would not seek the payment of the indirect construction cost of this case. However, even if the plaintiff did not separately request the defendant to reach an agreement on the indirect construction cost of this case at the time of the extension of the construction period, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff waived the right to claim payment or granted the trust that the defendant would not claim the payment, even if the defendant did not have made such trust.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 46,60,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 29, 2014 to the date following the day when the copy of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant as the result of the Plaintiff’s request (the Plaintiff entered the instant committee in the original complaint, and this court made correction of the indication of the parties to the Republic of Korea in the course of pleading. The Defendant asserts that the said correction goes beyond its limit and is not permissible, and that the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed. However, the Defendant asserts that the correction of the instant committee without the capacity of the parties to the instant case to the Republic of Korea is naturally permitted as a correction of the indication of the parties, and that the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is not justified (the Defendant’s assertion also pointing this out).

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted due to the reasons, so it is so decided as per Disposition.

A person shall be appointed.