1. The Defendant’s KRW 210,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from February 1, 2019 to April 14, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 30, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant (Co., Ltd.) (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) to conclude a contract with the effect that, among the “new construction works of the building E-building in the Uan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and one parcel of land, the construction works for outer walls paints, inner paints, underground scrapers, first floor, and rooftop project, and parking lot line line (hereinafter “instant construction works”) shall be KRW 210,000,000 for the construction cost, and the construction period from August 30, 2017 to December 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

B. Around January 2019, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 210,000,000 under the instant subcontract and damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from February 1, 2019 to April 14, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, as claimed by the Plaintiff, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that the construction cost under the subcontract of this case is KRW 20 million, and among them, KRW 100 million is adjusted by the method of contract by increasing the unpaid construction cost on the G located in Gwangju and the F, a person in charge at the site, and KRW 59 million in relation to the Dlavi and the Daraeproof Construction, so the defendant's claim to the effect that the construction cost to be paid under the subcontract of this case remains only KRW 41 million.

However, there is no evidence to prove the defendant's above assertion, and the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

4. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.