1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 44,769,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 29, 2016 to October 11, 2016; and (b) from the following day.

1. In full view of Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 6 as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of Gap’s testimony in witness evidence No. 6, the plaintiff was awarded a contract from the defendant for construction of KRW 54,769,00 on December 29, 2015 and completed the construction of KRW 54,769,00, and the fact that Gap paid part of ten million as construction cost.

Therefore, the defendant should pay the balance of 44,769,00 won, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's dispute

A. 1) The defendant asserts that the contract was not effective due to the non-performance of the condition precedent. The defendant asserts that the contract was not effective due to the lack of funds from the actual owner of the contract in this case, and that the contract was executed formally by the defendant as the contractor in order to support the construction fund. The defendant also concluded the contract under the condition that the defendant prepares and pays a down payment, which is 50% of the contract price, and the defendant eventually failed to secure the funds. The defendant notified the representative of the (ju)C to the plaintiff on December 30, 2015, and sent it to the plaintiff. Thus, the contract in this case did not take effect. It is insufficient to support the fact that the condition of suspension asserted by the defendant was the content of the contract in this case by the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant's assertion that the contract in this case was concluded with the new construction contract in this case, and the construction price was not completed until 16% of the contract price and the contract price was completed by 16% of the construction work.