1. The Defendant’s KRW 67,299,733 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 4, 2018 to January 14, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 20, 2017, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract with the Chang Metal glass Corporation (including value-added tax) at the contract price of KRW 544,50,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from June 22, 2017 to September 30, 2017, among D Corporation ordered by Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City to C (hereinafter “C”).

B. On July 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on goods (construction) with the Defendant and D Corporation (hereinafter “instant contract”) with a view to setting the contract amount of KRW 368,500,000 (including value-added tax) and having to execute the said contract on August 30, 2017 on the completion date.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 274,560,000, out of the construction price, up to now.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 15-1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, when applying the unit price under the contract, the construction cost should be calculated on the basis of the material requirements, including law amounts, not the actual construction volume, and the Defendant asserts that the construction cost should be calculated on the basis of the actual construction volume.

The following facts and circumstances are acknowledged in full view of the descriptions of Gap evidence 10 and the appraisal result of appraiser E:

① The unit price of a melter panel shall not be distinguished from that of a flat board, but shall be equal to 154,800 won in the statement attached to the instant contract.

(2) The actual quantity of construction by a melting panel shall be remarkably less than the quantity entered in a contract statement.

③ The Defendant asserted that “the unit price was to be preserved for the total quantity in lieu of separately setting the unit price of the grain board (the preparatory documents as of January 14, 2019, and the preparatory documents as of September 23, 2019),” and stated that “in the course of appraisal, the Plaintiff was aware of the processed substance quantity at the time of reducing the contract volume, but the ordering authority and the supervising authority sold the actual quantity at the time of shipment that the contract volume would not meet the required quantity.”

(Written 26 pages) According to this, the Plaintiff.