2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,675,880 and its amount on January 2, 2014.

A. On March 14, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the Public Procurement Service (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Procurement Service) and the Red River ecological river development project (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the packaging of the bicycle lane (hereinafter “instant construction”) on the following terms:

(1) On August 30, 2012, 2012, on August 30, 2012, the supply deadline of 6,961.00 square meters in the quantity of the bus exclusive lanes/child protection zones/ bicycle lanes / delivery/san / mountain fences / parking lots 6,961.00 square meters of the detailed specifications of the item, the total amount of KRW 10,900 (one square meter), 75,874,900 in a unit price for the installation of the annual salary and on-site installation under the conditions of the delivery of Hongcheon-gu Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gu, Hongcheon-do

B. On April 11, 2011, the Plaintiff supplied the Dom-type floor materials on the Hongcheon River located in the annual salary Ri, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gu, Hongcheon-gu, Hongcheon-do, Hongcheon-do (the section from Taecheon apartment to the drainage pumps) to implement the instant supply contract, and the first test packing was conducted, but there was a defect such as decline in packaging, spawning, etc., and the same year.

6. 21. The same defect occurred in the second test packing carried out.

After that, on September 17, 201, the third test package implemented around September 201 was judged to have a good condition, and from around October 17, 201 to around November 10 of the same year, the said section was supplied with 3,000 square meters of the floor site of the Dom-type (hereinafter “instant floor”) and completed packing, and there was the same defect (hereinafter “instant defect”) in the section corresponding to approximately 30% of the area ( approximately 3,772 square meters) packed for a long time.

C. On July 18, 2012, the Defendant terminated the instant supply contract on the grounds of “the occurrence of defects, the failure to perform the contract, and the failure to meet the purpose of the contract,” and on the grounds of the termination of the supply contract, Article 31 of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Local Contract Act”), Article 92(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 76(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.