1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,676,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 29, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant awarded a contract for the construction of tin in 22,50,000 among the construction of a new commercial building in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and for 3,300,000 additional construction of the front floor stairs of the building in question, and the Plaintiff completed the said construction.

B. On May 10, 2016, the Defendant awarded a contract for stone construction in KRW 56,905,00 among the construction works of a commercial building in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and the Plaintiff completed the said construction works.

C. On August 8, 2016, the Defendant awarded a contract for tin work in KRW 34,971,000 among the remodeling works for buildings located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and the Plaintiff completed the said work.

The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 85,00,000,000 in total on eight occasions from January 18, 2016 to October 5, 2016, as the price for construction of each construction project.

E. Meanwhile, even though the Defendant paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff on June 4, 2016, the Defendant did not have any dispute between the parties.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount payable for tin construction cost of KRW 32,676,00 (25,80,900,000 KRW 56,905,000, KRW 34,971,000 - KRW 85,000), and the amount payable for value-added tax of June 4, 2016, plus KRW 35,676,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 29, 2016 to the day of full payment, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. The defendant's argument that the defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion is the fact that tin construction has contracted three times to the plaintiff, but it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's claim since the construction amount of the quotation submitted by the plaintiff as evidence.

It is recognized that the defendant's signature and seal is not attached to the documents No. 2-1 to No. 3 (Written Estimate), but on the other hand, Gap's 1 and No. 2.