1. The defendant shall pay 24,220,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 11, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 31, 2014, between the Defendant and the Defendant who manufactured, processed, and sold agricultural products and food, the term “kimchi-making improvement work within the Chungcheongju Business Place” (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

(2) After entering into a contract on construction work, the Plaintiff agreed to revise the construction work content on several occasions. The Plaintiff completed the construction work in accordance with the final agreement, and agreed to settle the construction work price in this case with the Defendant at KRW 25.3 million (including value-added tax). (2) The Plaintiff separately supplied the Defendant with the instant construction work date in the course of the instant construction work, which is equivalent to KRW 7.20,000,000.

3) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 24.22 million (i.e., KRW 25.3 million) and damages for delay. (ii) Although the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to do the instant construction, the Defendant is merely a lessee of the Chungcheong plant, and the actual construction cost was paid by C (the representative D or his father, who is the substantial representative C) who owns the said factory.

2) Since a defect occurred in the construction works executed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s claim amount was excessive, the Plaintiff decided to remove the facilities and reinstate them, and waived the right to claim the instant construction cost. On February 2, 200, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5 (a contract for construction works, the name of the Defendant, and the stamp image subsequent to the Defendant’s name is presumed to have been caused by the Defendant’

Although the defendant defense that F used the above corporate seal impression, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

() In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 10 through 13, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 9 (including each evidence attached with numbers), the plaintiff is in the Chungcheong City G on March 31, 2014 that the defendant leased between the defendant and the defendant.