1. The Defendant’s KRW 314,003,190 as well as 6% per annum from December 7, 2017 to September 13, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the serial number), the plaintiff shall perform the construction work of a factory newly built between the defendant and the defendant on November 1, 2016, the plaintiff shall pay 1,180,000,000 won as the construction cost. The construction period shall be from November 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017, and the delayed payment rate shall be 0.01% per day. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant on December 12, 2016 with the defendant on behalf of the defendant, with the construction cost of 420,00,000 won as the construction cost, and the construction period shall be from December 12, 2016 to February 20, 2017, the plaintiff may not, on behalf of the defendant, pay the construction cost of 1,180,000 won to the defendant's 20,000 won for delay, and the plaintiff may not complete the construction period of 3.

Therefore, the Defendant appears to have calculated KRW 1,120,00 on the part of the Plaintiff’s compensation for delay at KRW 277,480,00 (i.e., KRW 1,120,000,000 for the construction of a new B factory, which is calculated by mistake. 】01 】 0.01 】 178 days x 420,000,000 x 001 x 186 days x 36,523,190 x 186 days), and the compensation for delay at KRW 314,03,190 on the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order (the Plaintiff claimed from August 26, 2017 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order), but there is no evidence to view that the Defendant’s compensation for delay did not have any obligation for delay before the due date for the Defendant’s claim for the discharge.