1. The Defendant’s KRW 864,657,920 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from January 30, 2014 to May 7, 2014.

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-4-2 and Eul evidence No. 4.

On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement (hereinafter “instant construction agreement”) with a pair of construction companies (hereinafter “balm construction”).

1. The ordering person;

2. Works for the construction of the main contract, the name of the project site, the test section for high-speed railroads, the 3-dong bridge and earthquake-proof reinforcement works;

3. Construction work name of subcontracted project, projected removal or replacement of bridges (excluding the three bridge, etc., and hereinafter referred to as the “construction work in this case”).

4. The year-end 499 of the Haak-gun of the Chungcheongbuk-gun of the construction site;

5. The contract amount of 3,215,300,000 won (the supply amount of 2,923,000,000, value-added tax of 292,300,000 won) on October 20, 2013, from the completion to October 20, 2013 (the alteration to April 30, 2014) from July 26, 2013 when the contract period of the construction contract begins. 7. Labor cost of 935,360,000 won (the supply amount of 2,923,000,000 won)

(a) Advance payment: Criteria for the payment of the ordering person;

(b) Method of payment (2) once a month when a request is made: Criteria for the ordering agency; and

B. On December 30, 2013, a pair of construction applied for rehabilitation to the Seoul Central District Court. On January 9, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings in the rehabilitation case No. 2013 Gohap291, and the defendant was deemed a custodian in the above decision.

C. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant demanding a definite answer within 30 days from the implementation of the instant construction contract under Article 119 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. The Defendant received the said peremptory notice on January 27, 2014, and obtained permission from the Seoul Central District Court to extend the period for the said definite answer on March 26, 2014, but did not provide a definite answer as to the implementation of the instant construction contract. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff did not provide a definite answer as to the implementation of the instant construction contract. The contract amount of the instant construction contract as KRW 3,307,700,000 (the supply amount of KRW 3,007,000,000, value-added tax amount of KRW 300,700,000).