1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 102,381,510 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 15, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. The facts below the basic facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 13 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6; Eul witness’s testimony and witness C’s partial testimony (except for the parts not trusted in the front and rear).

D University was performing the construction of dormitories and educational facilities in the school. Around July 2014, Non-Party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) was designated as a business entity that establishes a network system to enter the said dormitory.

B. After receiving an order for the above project, E requested the pertinent business entity to submit a written estimate of the network construction project equipment to be installed in the said dormitory, and the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate through E’s cooperation company.

However, the difference between the estimated amount submitted by the plaintiff and the supply value desired by E was too high, but the adjustment was known, and the plaintiff notified that the amount could not be operated in the amount requested by E.

C. When the supply of network equipment necessary for the completion of a dormitory was delayed, D University demanded E to complete the construction of a network as soon as possible, and around September 2014, E had negotiations with the Plaintiff on the price of network equipment again.

E, Plaintiff and D University participated in negotiations and discussed them, and the Plaintiff decided to undertake the project by adjusting some items.

Although the above price negotiations have been completed, E was unable to proceed with the construction work at the above agreed price in the course of internal consultation, the project was suspended.

However, since January 2015, EF presidents and the directors of the defendant C et al. were in progress with the plaintiff's side and E worked for the defendant to build the network.