1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,983,380 as well as annual 5% from October 28, 2014 to July 5, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff received payment from the Defendant for the construction work for the storage facility of duty-free petroleum in the outer year and its affiliated facilities (hereinafter “instant construction work”) at KRW 238,00,000 for the construction cost, from May 6, 2013 to July 4, 2013 for the construction period, and from May 6, 2013, the rate of liquidated damages at KRW 1/100 per day.

B. On May 24, 2013, June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that the design was needed due to the review of design drawings, design errors, construction methods, etc. by the survey on the current status, and requested the Defendant to extend the construction completion period by one month on June 24, 2013, on the ground that the survey on boundary was conducted, design changes, etc.

C. On September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a completion inspection report on the instant construction project, and submitted a revised statement indicating the construction cost as KRW 503,216,000.

Accordingly, on September 16, 2013, the Defendant did not approve the design change to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant submitted the basis documents for the request for settlement of accounts to conclude the contract and demanded the submission of the completion system via the supervision.

On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a statement of change that stated the construction cost in KRW 354,559,000.

On the same day, the defendant sent the plaintiff a written review opinion, accompanied by the supervisor's written review, to submit a structural safety confirmation and to promptly complete the procedure.

E. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant accepted the details of the design change of the instant construction project, but notified the Plaintiff that the construction cost should be KRW 274,938,000 in consideration of the bid price ratio and the amount calculated by considering the details of the change through the instant construction design business.

Accordingly, on November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff responded that the change of the design of the instant construction is not a voluntary construction, and that the said settlement proposal presented by the Defendant cannot be followed.

F. The Plaintiff and the Defendant pertaining to the instant construction work on November 20, 2013.