1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 181 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from June 11, 2018 to July 27, 2018; and (c).

Comprehensively taking account of the absence of dispute between the parties concerned or the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 50 million from the defendant during the construction period from March 19, 2018 (including additional tax) to April 15, 2018, with the construction period of each construction period changed from the defendant up to May 10, 2018 (referring to the construction period of April 15, 2018) and the construction cost of the complex unit civil engineering work among the new construction works of the D Care Center (including additional tax), the construction period of KRW 135,30,00 (including additional tax), April 15, 2018, and the construction cost of the complex unit civil engineering work among the new construction works of the D Care Center, and the plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 50,000 from the defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 181 million ( KRW 135.3 million KRW 95.7 million KRW - 50 million KRW), as sought by the Plaintiff, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 11, 2018 to July 27, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the amount of the construction price for the non-execution portion should be deducted from the amount of the unpaid construction price, so it is not sufficient to recognize this only with the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (Additional Number) as to the existence of the non-execution portion of the construction in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.