1. The Defendant’s KRW 122,812,184 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 25, 2013 to December 17, 2015.

A. It cannot be readily concluded that an excess has been received;

② The plaintiff also acknowledges that 9,534,022 won should be deleted from the purchase price on the revised statement on the current settlement of accounts.

In addition, 37,500,000 won (the settlement money of the plaintiff's assertion) should also be deleted from the purchase.

③ KRW 40,000,000, out of the purchase cost of the construction work in the revised statement of settlement status (i.e., the KRW 20,000,000,000 on October 25, 200 for the same KRW 20,000,000 on October 24, 200) under the evidence No. 23-24 of the Act on the Settlement Status of Accounts, is stated as advance payment by C, and thus, does not constitute the purchase cost of the construction in Japan.

Even if the advance payment, KRW 27,182,40,00, which was part of the advance payment, was appropriated for the repayment of the progress payment to C corporation.

Even if so, the remaining KRW 12,817,60 is not considered as C’s purchase cost.

(4) Aggregate of the purchase cost of steel for primary construction works (H-300*200*200*9*9*14 through H-300*300*300*10*15) included in the purchase cost of primary construction works on the revised statement of settlement status shall not be included in the purchase cost.

Since part of the fee for the use of the lecture material (the reduced value due to the use of the lecture material) or the fee for the lecture material (the equivalent cost equivalent to the value due to the death of the lecture material) can be used at a large construction site after purchasing the lecture material, the amount equivalent to the damages of the lecture material or the cost of the lecture material appropriately divided for each construction site where the lecture material is used falls under the purchase cost for each construction site. The purchase cost is the only purchase cost.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the expenses for the loss of steel and the president are re-calculated based on the amount of steel in accordance with the specifications of the construction project (Evidence A No. 43-12 to 14), the purchase cost should be increased by 55,94,921 won. However, it is impossible to verify the accuracy of the calculation in relation to the actual quantity, the loss cost, the unit price, the unit price of the president, etc. brought into the construction site.