1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 130 million with 15% per annum from August 20, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. If the purport of the whole pleadings is added to some entries or videos specified in Gap 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11-1, 11-3, Eul 8, 10-1, 12, and 15, the plaintiff prepared a standard contract for construction works (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case for convenience") with the defendant on May 2010, including "requirements for special agreement" as shown in the attached Form at the bar office located in Gyeonggi-gun C. The plaintiff paid the defendant a construction price of 100 million won. Despite the absence of the "act of interfering with construction works by intention of the plaintiff," the plaintiff paid the construction price to the defendant, and even if the defendant did not complete all the construction works specified in the contract of this case, the remaining construction works are interrupted due to the defendant's unilateral circumstances, and the plaintiff can be recognized as having finished such large amount of additional construction works without any choice, and the defendant has a duty to pay the plaintiff a penalty of 100,000 won under the contract of this case.

B. As to this, the Defendant first contests that “the conditions of the special agreement are merely the fact that the Plaintiff intends to present to its partners (including the assertion that the instant contract was modified), but there is no evidence to acknowledge this (including the assertion that the instant contract was modified), and thus, the Defendant’s argument that the Defendant was friendly cannot be accepted.

Next, the defendant is not only "the above special agreement is entirely unfavorable to the defendant (Article 104 of the Civil Act)" but also "the above special agreement constitutes a case where the punishment agreed in comparison with the plaintiff's interest obtained by the enforcement of the obligation is excessively excessive, and its whole is null and void against the public order and good morals (Article 103 of the Civil Act)" and at least the plaintiff's claim of this case.