1. The Defendant’s KRW 146,30,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 5, 2016 to August 22, 2018.

1. The collapse of a retaining wall, a retaining wall, or a retaining wall;

A. On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) awarded a contract for the Reinforcement Land Construction Work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) to the Defendant, who carries on a business, such as a specialized construction subcontract, etc., on the land outside C and two parcels, for the construction period from October 8, 2015 to November 20, 2015; and (b) agreed to settle the additional volume at KRW 100,000 per square meter after completion of the construction work.

B. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant started the instant construction, and completed a double-structure reinforced soil retaining wall with a height of 197m and 10.5m (1st 5m, 2nd 5m) around the end of November, 2015 (hereinafter “the retaining wall of this case”), and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 170,170,000 to the construction cost.

C. On April 10, 2016, an accident that partially collapses on one part of the retaining wall of this case (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 11, the video of Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant constructed the retaining wall of this case, different from the initial design, and caused structural defects in the retaining wall of this case, which were filled up in the retaining wall of this case, and caused the accident of this case due to the Defendant’s defective construction.

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 29 million incurred by the Plaintiff in removing and re-construction the retaining wall of this case and KRW 71,922,589 for liquidated damages from the day following the accident of this case until August 31, 2017, to the day after the Plaintiff completed construction through another constructor.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not create a drainage channel on the ground surface filled up for more than five months after the completion of the retaining wall of this case, and thereafter, a large amount of rain thereafter, and the load of the retaining wall upper soil was increased.

In addition, the plaintiff is unreasonable to cover up the soil above the retaining wall of this case.