1. The Defendant paid KRW 29,821,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 6% per annum from July 1, 2016 to October 5, 2016.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a)as shown in the reasons for the recognition in the annexed sheet;

[Attachment 5] The “from June 31, 2016, which is the date of payment (the date of completion of construction)” in the attached Form 5 shall be corrected as “from July 1, 2016, which is the date following the date of completion of construction work”] The ground for recognition is without dispute. The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in each of subparagraphs A1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to perform as stated in the Disposition to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the construction cost of this case was paid by the Defendant with the loan.

“The Defendant’s borrowing of a loan is a “term of suspension” of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the construction cost of the instant case, and the Defendant did not receive a loan, so the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the construction cost of

B. 1) The fact that a certain juristic act constitutes a so-called “conditional juristic act” which takes effect at the time of the fulfillment of a condition is asserted and bears the burden of proof against the person who seeks to dispute the legal effect on the grounds that it prevents the occurrence of the legal effect due to such juristic act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da20832, Sept. 28, 1993). 2) In light of the above legal principle, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant case was added to the health unit and the Defendant’s obligation to pay the instant construction cost, and there is no “requirements of Suspension” asserted by the Defendant.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Receipt of the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion