1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,541,860 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from September 4, 2016 to October 25, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 3, 2014, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction work for the construction work for the construction work for the construction work of the main metal factory on the ground B of the Gyeongdong-gun in the Gyeongbuk-gun (hereinafter “the entire construction work of this case”) with the construction cost of KRW 300,00,000 (including value-added tax).

B. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was subcontracted by the Defendant with the following content of the steel frame among the entire construction works of this case (hereinafter “the steel frame”).

- Construction cost: 113,00,000 won (including value-added tax): The method of payment for the construction cost: The progress payment shall be paid in accordance with the payment rate of the no-permanent metal which is the ordering person, and the completion payment shall be made when the project owner completes the payment of the construction cost - The construction period shall be from June 26, 2014 to August 2, 2014.

The Plaintiff completed the instant steel frame construction. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Nonparty, which sought payment of the unpaid construction cost, out of the total construction cost of the instant case (Tgu District Court 2015Da10629), and the said lawsuit was final and conclusive on September 3, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 63,458,140 out of the price for the steel framed construction in this case from the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 49,541,860 won and 15% per annum under the Commercial Act, from September 4, 2016 to October 25, 2016, which is the date following the day when the decision to recommend reconciliation in the lawsuit against the remainder of the total construction price among the total construction price of this case between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the due date, to the extent that it is reasonable to pass from September 4, 2016, which is the day when the decision to recommend reconciliation in the lawsuit against the remainder of the total construction price of this case, to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .