1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26,671,00 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from November 5, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with respect to reinforced concrete construction (hereinafter “the instant construction”) among the construction works executed in Jindo-gun by Jindo-gun on June 201 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in relation to the cause of the claim. Under the instant subcontract, the Plaintiff spent KRW 26,671,00 in aggregate due to the cost of construction of a site office, etc. according to the instant subcontract; thereafter, the instant subcontract was terminated; and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the fact that the Plaintiff was liable to pay the said amount to the Defendant; barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 20% as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 5, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the following day after the Plaintiff made a statement to reduce the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion and the judgment thereon

A. After the Defendant’s assertion was terminated, the subcontract for the instant construction project was concluded again between the Defendant and the Subdivision Construction Co., Ltd., and as at the time of the agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Subdivision Construction Co., Ltd. to pay the said construction cost, the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff was exempted from liability to the Subdivision Construction Co., Ltd.

B. The question of whether the assumption of an obligation is a heavy burden of proof is an issue of the interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the assumption of an obligation agreement, and whether it is a discharge of obligation, and if it is not clear whether it is an overlapping underwriter, it shall be deemed that it is an overlapping acceptance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228, Sept. 24, 2002), the entry of the evidence No. 1, and the testimony of the witness A.