1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,200,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 18, 2014 to June 18, 2015, and the following.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator running a construction business, and the Defendant was the owner of the Damoel located in Daegu-gu Seoul (hereinafter “the instant cartel”).

In December 2013, the Plaintiff commenced construction work on the basis of the Defendant’s request for the glass for the instant cartel, and around 90% of the completion of construction work on January 2014, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 4,864,00 in favor of the Defendant 4,864,00 in favor of strengthening 8m transparency, KRW 1,968,00 in favor of strengthening 8m transparency (each side), KRW 8m transparency (each side), KRW 12,600,00 in glass, KRW 11,120,000 in 5m color ( Black), KRW 5m white-lit ( Black), KRW 384,00 in each side, KRW 450,00 in equipment size, KRW 450,00 in total, KRW 1,968,00 in favor of 8m transparency (each side), and KRW 300,300,00 in addition to the Plaintiff’s claim.

However, the Defendant failed to pay the above construction cost, and the Plaintiff suspended construction until it receives the construction cost.

Since then, the Defendant deposited KRW 35,200,000 on November 23, 2014, among the total construction cost of KRW 32,000,000 (additional tax of KRW 3,200,000), and KRW 5,00,000 on December 5, 2014, which is the following month, to each Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed all the construction parts remaining around December 17, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 10,00,000 paid out of the total construction cost of KRW 35,200,000, which is the remainder of KRW 25,200,000, which is the day following the completion of the instant construction work, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 18, 2014 to June 18, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day.

2. The defendant alleged that there was no fact that the contract was entered into with the plaintiff and there was no fact that the plaintiff had been urged to pay the construction cost.