1. The defendant shall against the plaintiff Credit Guarantee Fund,

A. KRW 276,783,747 and its related thereto from June 1, 2012 to June 9, 2016.

Facts of recognition

On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff Korea Credit Guarantee Fund’s Intervenor case Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Intervenor”) entered into a subcontract with the Defendant on January 17, 2006, by determining that the Defendant subcontracted the construction cost of 12.419 billion won (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among the “A Corporation” that the Defendant was contracted by the Busan Regional Land Management Agency on January 17, 2006 (hereinafter “A Corporation”) and entered into a subcontract with the Defendant on January 20, 201 as the construction cost of 12.755,116,00 won (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The date of commencement was extended on January 20, 2009; the date of completion on December 31, 2011 (the period extended on April 18, 2013 through the four modified contract thereafter).

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The Plaintiff’s Intervenor paid the construction cost of the instant construction and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor for the discontinuance of the construction was a construction work under the instant subcontract and an additional construction work in accordance with the Defendant’s direction, and the construction cost received from the Defendant and the ordering person by May 201 is the total amount of KRW 6,352,917,750.

Plaintiff

Since June 2011, the Intervenor requested the Defendant to pay approximately KRW 1.4 billion of the construction cost due to additional works, but the Defendant paid excessive construction cost due to the construction portion.

On the ground that it cannot be seen as an additional construction, it was rejected on the ground that it could not be seen as an additional construction, and thereafter, the difference between the defendant and the additional construction costs could not be narrow.

Accordingly, on May 29, 2012, when the civil petition regarding the delayed payment at the construction site of the instant case continuously occurred, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff’s Intervenor of the termination of the instant subcontract on the ground that the instant construction cannot be completed within the fixed period according to the fair progress and the occurrence of the overdue payment.

With respect to this, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor notified the Defendant of the termination of the construction work due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the construction cost, and around June 2012, the instant construction work was suspended and the construction site was handed over to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor who successively transferred the construction cost claim.