1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,878,630 as well as 5% per annum from November 29, 2013 to June 17, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Around May 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract contract with the Defendant for construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) that the Defendant would perform by being awarded a contract for the part of the Cheongju-si Construction Work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among the parts of the Cheongju-si New Construction Work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) that the Defendant performed under a contract with Korea-Japan New Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-Japan New Construction Work”).

(However, the construction contract was drafted on September 5, 2012).

At the time of the conclusion of the above contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined KRW 377,70,518, which is the amount obtained by deducting 3% of the construction cost under the contract for the assistance works entered into with Korea and Japan, from KRW 389,381,977, which is the amount of construction cost under the contract for the assistance works entered into with Korea and Japan, as the construction cost in this case. The method of payment was agreed to settle the assistance construction work once a month and

C. According to the content certification that the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff from the beginning of June 2012 to the end of December 2012 (Evidence No. 5-2 and 3), the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff suspended construction work on January 1, 2013 (a clerical error from the content certification to January 1, 2012).

As stipulated in the instant construction contract, the Defendant suspended construction. As to this, the Defendant paid part of the construction work to the Plaintiff, and that part of the construction work was paid to the Plaintiff by means of direct payment to the Plaintiff’s husband and the material transaction partner. At each time of the payment of the progress payment, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff signed on the settlement amount. In such a way, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the progress payment calculated by subtracting 3% from the progress payment for each month received from the Han new co-ownership from June through November. However, the Defendant settled the excess payment in the manner of deducting 3% from the progress payment received from the progress payment received from the Han New Co-ownership at the time of the payment of the progress payment, based on the amount obtained by deducting 3% from the progress payment received from the new co-ownership who was paid

12.00.000.000