1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,829,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from August 30, 2013 to January 20, 2014.

The entire document is presumed to be authentic, inasmuch as there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and there is no dispute over the fact that Gap 1-1, 1-2 (the stamp image affixed after the defendant's name is affixed with the seal of the defendant, and since the defendant's employee hears the word that it is a formal document necessary for the commencement of the project and affixed the seal only, the defendant's employee's assertion to the effect that it is null and void as a conspiracy mark, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion, the above defense cannot be accepted), the whole purport of the arguments and arguments between the defendant and the defendant on August 9, 2013, the plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the defendant on the construction project with the defendant for large-scale repair of the fourth floor B (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") of Yongsan-gu Seoul and two lots of land B (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"), and the plaintiff completed the construction project on August 29, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a person who has received KRW 50 million from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 42,829,00 (= KRW 92,829,000 - KRW 50 million) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from August 30, 2013 to January 20, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, from August 30, 2014, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant ordered C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) to repair the entire building of this case, and thus, the Defendant did not conclude a contract for construction work with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the construction cost directly on the part of C’s subcontractor.

According to the descriptions in Eul 1, 2-1 to 2-3, and 3, the Plaintiff is indoors with C on May 2013, and C on the first floor and the first to third floor of the instant building.