1. The Defendant’s KRW 55,179,732 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from October 21, 2015 to April 12, 2017.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment on this issue

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion at each construction site of this case, as indicated below and the table below, performed construction work equivalent to KRW 2,404,518,60 (the Plaintiff calculated the total amount of construction cost claimed by it as KRW 2,404,518,60, which appears to be an error in calculation), and the Defendant directly received construction cost of KRW 1,439,597,600 from the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 717,680,868 to the Plaintiff’s subordinate businesses. As the Defendant paid KRW 247,240,132, which was unpaid to the Defendant (=2,404,518,600), the Plaintiff sought payment from the Defendant of KRW 1,439,597,60, 717,680,6868).

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the construction cost of the parts constructed by the Plaintiff at each construction site of this case is only KRW 2,338,173,200 as indicated below. Since the construction cost exceeding the above construction cost has already been paid to the Plaintiff, it is impossible to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost.

[Unit: 1) Of the claimed amount of the Defendant 1 B 21,450,00 21,450,000 20 2,391,390,000 274,065,00 28-1,00 3,850-2, 00 0-2, 650 0-2, 060 06, 060, 07 06, 000 7, 06, 000 7, 06, 70, 000 7, 06, 06, 70, 000 7, 06, 00 7, 00, 06, 06, 07, 06, 07, 187, 200, 361, 3618, 206, 206, 1668, 206, etc., of apartment apartment buildings