1. The Defendant’s KRW 57,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 16, 2015 to February 5, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for construction cost of 100 million won and construction period of 100 million won from April 29, 2015 to May 31, 2015 with respect to the construction of a gallon of the fourth floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul building (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction cost of 10 million won and construction period of 200 million won from April 29, 2015, and the same year.

5. 12.40 million won was paid in total to KRW 90 million.

B. On June 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) drafted a written statement stating that the Defendant promised to repay construction cost of KRW 90 million by July 15, 2015, given that the Defendant did not complete construction works promised to do so and incurred losses therefrom to the Plaintiff; (b) drafted a promissory note No. 50 million per day on the same day, the payment date of which was July 15, 2015, and a promissory note No. 40 million per face value, the payment date of which was July 15, 2015, and the payment date of which was July 3, 2015, respectively.

C. The Defendant: (a) KRW 29 million on July 3, 2015 to the Plaintiff; and (b) the same year

7.5.4 million won was paid in total to KRW 33 million.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff agreed to return all of the amount of KRW 90 million already paid to the plaintiff as the defendant did not complete the construction work under the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of KRW 57 million to the plaintiff (= KRW 90 million - KRW 33 million).

B. The Defendant’s failure to observe the Defendant’s assertion is not attributable to the Plaintiff’s demand for construction different from the written estimate. The Defendant already used KRW 4589,00 for the instant construction and, considering the Defendant’s personnel expenses, did not need to fully return KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s official conflict, intimidation, and deception. Accordingly, the Defendant’s declaration of intention is revoked.

In addition, the defendant claims the plaintiff to pay the additional amount to the subordinate companies due to the construction work of this case.