1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff KRW 49,890,000 against the Defendant and its related thereto from November 18, 2015 to August 23, 2016.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap 1, 4-9:

The plaintiff is a company that operates ship plant and steel structure manufacturing business, and the defendant is a person who operates machinery parts manufacturing business in the trade name of "C".

B. On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a supply contract with the Defendant for the construction price of 54,000,000 won for the production of virtue and pipes (DUT & PIP LINE 2 set respectively) and for the construction period from June 8, 2015 to June 29, 2015. The Plaintiff agreed that the construction price of 63,000,000 won will be increased and the construction period will be extended to July 28, 2015.

After manufacturing the virtue and pipes under the above contract, the Plaintiff delivered them to the Katti Co., Ltd., the original office building designated by the Defendant.

C. On June 8, 2015 and June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 10,800,000 as part of the construction payment from the Defendant.

2. According to the facts found in Paragraph (1) of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 10,800,000,000 after subtracting the Plaintiff’s payment from the construction cost of KRW 63,000,000 (=63,000,000 - 10,800,000) and damages for delay, barring any special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff failed to observe the agreed delivery period, and the Plaintiff paid additional expenses to the Defendant for re-revision due to the defective condition of the supplied virtue and pipes. As such, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Defendant the total amount of KRW 49,090,000,000, which was incurred by the Defendant.

Therefore, the amount equivalent to the above damages should be deducted from the remainder of the construction cost that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment No. 12-1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are at KRW 63,00,000 for the construction cost on September 7, 2015.