1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 74,960,00 and the interest thereon from September 6, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for reinforced concrete construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) to the construction cost of KRW 212,40,000 (excluding value-added tax), October 28, 2014, and February 28, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 10 million as the construction cost of the instant construction project.

C. The instant construction was suspended on or around December 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. The Plaintiff, who indicated the claim, is contracted with the Defendant Company to carry out the construction work of this case.

Since the construction cost was suspended due to the failure to receive it, the Defendant Company shall pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 74,960,000 (i.e., the construction cost of KRW 212,400,000 x the progress rate of KRW 40% - the construction cost of KRW 10,000) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 6, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. As to the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the construction cost, which is the actual owner of the instant construction project, but the instant construction project was discontinued due to the detention of Defendant C, and accordingly, Defendant C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 74,960,000, which is the progress rate of the instant construction project, based on 40%.

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant C’s execution of the instant construction work in light of the statement No. 3

Although the construction was interrupted due to detention, it is not sufficient to recognize the progress rate of the construction of this case as 40% only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 4-1 through 5, and Gap evidence 5-8.