1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 66,773,850 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 27, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 12, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the “EM 2-Linked Railroad Construction Work” by Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Industry”), and the Plaintiff was sub-subcontracted by the Defendant for the construction cost of the said construction work from September 12, 2015 to November 30, 2015, with the term “Y 394,090,000 (Additional Tax; hereinafter the same shall apply)” and the construction period from September 12, 2015 to November 30, 2015

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would pay the amount calculated by deducting KRW 86,645,845 from the supply amount of cement material in relation to the payment for the completion of the instant construction project. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff finally confirmed the amount of cement powder deduction as KRW 60,70,50.

C. Meanwhile, Article 7 of the instant contract provides that “The items and quantities of the payment materials are nonexistent”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 7, witness A and witness Eul's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties concerned, as a matter of course, submitted a quotation on the premise that cement supply is to be borne by the Defendant before preparing the instant contract with the Defendant. Since cement was supplied through an agreement with the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff all the unpaid construction cost after deducting the remainder of cement material cost.

The defendant asserts that cement necessary for the construction of this case should be raised at the cost of the plaintiff, since cement is not paid according to Article 7 of the contract of this case.

3. Determination

A. (1) Determination on the interpretation of Article 7 of the instant contract (1) as to the fact that the item and quantity of the payment material under Article 7 of the instant contract is written as “no” is as seen earlier, but the understanding between the parties is not finalized as in the instant case.