1. The defendant shall pay 130,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 11, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Fact-finding;

A. The Plaintiff has a claim for the payment of steel framed production amounting to KRW 244,594,116, based on the payment order in the Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Da1344 decided Cheongju Branch.

B. The non-party company has a claim for the construction price of this case equivalent to KRW 377,00,000 against the defendant.

(C) The Defendant recognized that the construction cost of the instant case should be paid to the non-party company on the first pleading date regardless of whether the construction work is completed, with respect to the non-party company, as a claim for the construction cost related to the steel framed among the new construction of the new warehouse facilities on the ground outside

The Plaintiff was determined to seize and collect the claim for the instant construction price as the claim amounting to KRW 244,594,116 of the amount of the claim based on the above payment order under the Cheongju District Court Decision 2013TTT538.

(Service to the Defendant on March 11, 2013, and March 29, 2013). [Service to the Defendant on March 201, 2013] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above collection amount of KRW 130,000,000, which is part of the above collection amount of KRW 244,594,116, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 11, 2015, which is the day following the service of the payment order, to the day of complete payment.

B. On the Defendant’s argument, the gist of the Defendant’s argument is to set off the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff [the right to claim reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of KRW 6,514,935 on the Cheongju District Court 2013Kahap112 case (the final decision on the amount of litigation costs as of June 9, 2014, 2014), with the Defendant’s automatic claim, against the amount equal to the Plaintiff’s claim.

② Since the claims for the construction price of this case competes with seizure, collection order, provisional seizure, etc., the entire amount to be collected cannot be paid to the Plaintiff.

(2) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion ①