1. The Defendant’s KRW 78,380,761 as well as 5% per annum from October 11, 2013 to July 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that, on September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff contracted to the Defendant for remodeling (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 1.32 million (including value-added tax), from September 15, 2012 to December 21, 2012, with the construction period of KRW 1.1/100 (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction contract”) of the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 1,209,254,000 out of the construction cost to the Defendant on September 10, 2012, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,209,254,00 of the construction cost to the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.

The Plaintiff’s assertion caused damages of KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff due to the failure of the Defendant to perform the instant construction works properly. During the construction of the instant construction works, the Plaintiff suspended construction on April 20, 2013 and as of the date of discontinuance thereof, the construction was delayed from December 21, 2012, which is the expiry date of the instant construction contract, and there was a delay of KRW 158,40 million as stipulated in the instant contract.

Therefore, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 198,40,000,000,000 for the unpaid construction cost, which is set off by the Plaintiff’s equivalent amount to KRW 110,746,00,000, the amount that the Defendant is liable to compensate is KRW 87,654,00,000. The Plaintiff as a part of the said amount and the damages for delay is claimed.

Among the non-execution items claimed by the plaintiff in relation to non-construction and erroneous construction, rooftop floor waterproof construction and rooftop temperature tank construction are not included in the scope of the instant construction. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the relevant part is without merit.

In addition, since the items of erroneous construction and the modified construction of low-cost products asserted by the Plaintiff are constructed differently from the design drawing at the Plaintiff’s request or rather used a higher product than the product on the design drawing, it is not reasonable to seek compensation solely on the ground that they are different from the

2. Penalty for delay;