1. The Defendant’s KRW 107,507,020 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 6% from December 30, 2014 to August 7, 2015, and the following.

1. Occurrence of obligation to pay the construction price;

A. The Defendant, on December 23, 2013, subcontracted the electrical construction for a factory A to the Plaintiff at KRW 14.5 million, and subcontracted the electrical construction for a factory B at KRW 73.7 million on January 20, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

(2) As of December 23, 2013, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a written contract for construction works that the Defendant agrees to subcontract to the Plaintiff with respect to the following construction works. As of April 2, 2014, a construction contract was prepared between the Defendant and the Defendant to further subcontract to the Plaintiff at KRW 6,160,000 for electrical construction works.

The name of the prime contract for the construction: The name of the subcontractor for the electrical construction (electric power facility): The construction site for the electrical construction (electric power plant) project: The construction site for the electrical construction (electric power plant) project: the contract price on January 26, 2014: the contract price on December 24, 2013, which was completed on December 26, 2014: the Plaintiff completed all of the above construction, and the Plaintiff additionally installed the additional power construction of KRW 2,200,000 and the additional installation works of KRW 1,485,000,000 for the electric power construction.

(4) The Plaintiff received construction price of KRW 212,537,980 from the Defendant from January 28, 2014 to December 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, and purport of the whole pleadings

B. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the remainder of the construction cost against the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was the party who given the subcontract to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant was not the party that given the subcontract to the Plaintiff.

As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intention in accordance with the contents of the statement, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that the contents of the statement can be denied.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu22169, Jun. 26, 1990). Defendant with respect to the electrical construction of Bohn AnnbC.