1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,976,100 among the Plaintiff and KRW 13,200,00 among them, shall be KRW 8,146,100 from September 1, 2012.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5:

당사자의 지위 원고는 과천시 C에서 ‘D’이라는 상호로 유리제품, 금속샷시 도ㆍ소매업을 영위하는 사람이고, 피고는 파주시 E에 본점을 두고 실내건축공사업 등을 영위하는 법인이다.

B. The Plaintiff’s subcontractor construction work 1) The Plaintiff is the metal construction and glass construction work among G store interior works located in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government F from the Defendant (hereinafter “One Corporation”).

(2) On October 6, 2012, the Plaintiff subcontracted to the Defendant and completed the construction work on August 2012, 2012. Moreover, around October 6, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for metal work among the I Integical Works in Changwon-si H (hereinafter “Second Work”) and completed the construction work around December 2012.

2. Determination as to the claim for construction price under Article 1

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the contract price was set at KRW 40,700,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and subcontracted the construction work to the defendant and completed the construction work on or around August 2012. The defendant paid KRW 27,50,000 out of the first contract price and did not pay the remainder of KRW 13,200,000. The defendant asserts that he is liable to pay the plaintiff the remainder of the construction price set at KRW 13,200,000 and delay damages.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the first construction was subcontracted to the plaintiff with the construction cost of KRW 27,500,000, and that all the first construction cost was paid thereafter.

B. In full view of the reasoning of the argument in the testimony by the witness J, the Plaintiff first subcontracted the construction cost of KRW 27,500,000 from the Defendant to the metal work among the G store interior works, and thereafter, the Defendant’s employees at the site manager of the said interior works, and further subcontracted the Plaintiff’s favorable construction work among the construction works.