1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The defendant around June 2012, 1) the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building C (hereinafter “instant real estate”)

2) As to the construction of new construction, the part of the structural construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”).

2) The corporation of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the corporation of this case”) shall be

(2) On August 15, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to receive KRW 20,000,000 as advance payment from the Defendant and directly complete the remainder of the instant aggregate construction work, and on October 2012, the instant company subcontracted part of the instant construction work to the Plaintiff.

3) On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the unpaid construction cost by settling the accounts of KRW 116,200,000 with the Defendant as the total amount of KRW 116,20,00. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 5, 3, 9, and 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 103,200,000 calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 103,200,000, which the Plaintiff paid from the Defendant until July 2013, barring special circumstances, from the amount of KRW 116,20,000, and to pay damages for delay calculated at each of the rates of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from February 25, 2014, the following day after the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, until February 5, 2015, which is the date of the ruling of the court of first instance, by the Defendant’s determination of the existence and scope of the obligation.

The Plaintiff also sought a payment of KRW 1,500,000 for temporary materials paid by himself during the construction of the instant case. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the above rent separately from the above settlement amount for the instant construction work, and it is otherwise recognized.