1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from July 1, 2013 to December 16, 2013, and the following.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4.

(1) On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in steel structure and window construction business, concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant by setting the term “D non-work and board construction work” as the name of the Defendant located in Chuncheon-si C as the construction cost of KRW 80 million (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from June 1, 2012 to October 31, 2012, which was contracted by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff completed the instant construction. On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff settled the instant construction cost and claimed KRW 80,004,000 to the Defendant.

(3) After June 30, 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay the instant construction cost of KRW 80 million (excluding value-added tax).

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 80 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff, as claimed by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that since the defendant paid 5 million won out of the construction price of this case on behalf of the plaintiff to E on behalf of the plaintiff, 5 million won should be deducted.

B. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 5 million to E is not in dispute between the parties, but only by itself, the amount of KRW 5 million shall not be deducted. Rather, according to each of the evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, the above five million portion was settled in advance in the process of the settlement of the instant construction cost, the amount of the adjusted construction cost was 80 million, and the Defendant agreed to pay the said construction cost by June 30, 2013. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

On the other hand, the defendant should claim the construction cost of this case against the non-party who is not the defendant.