1. The Defendant’s KRW 257,414 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 30, 2013 to September 16, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to receive a contract for the construction of a new factory on the ground of Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant to June 30, 2012 for the construction period from January 20, 2012 to June 30, 2012 (i.e., civil construction cost of KRW 163,00,000 + construction cost of KRW 584,90,000 + Value-Added Tax).

B. On May 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, results of the examination of the principal against D, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant paid a total of KRW 224,568,641 directly to the Supplier; and (b) the Defendant paid a total of KRW 521,943,495 to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 76,276,864 (=747,990,000 x 110%-224,568,641 -521,943,495) and delay damages therefrom.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the value-added tax should be added to only the balance remaining after the Defendant deducted the amount of direct payment as material cost, etc. from the construction cost.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the construction cost of KRW 747,90,00 (excluding value-added tax) at the time of the instant contract is recognized, and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have otherwise agreed on the method of settling the construction cost after the date of the instant contract, and therefore, the construction cost of KRW 822,789,00 (=747,990,000 + 110%) is the basis for calculating the balance of the construction cost.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the sum of the construction cost directly paid by the Defendant to the subcontractor E and F on November 13, 2012; (b) KRW 30,000,000; and (c) the Seodaemun Construction cost that the Plaintiff did not construct.