1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 224,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 25, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is running the Rotterdam fishery. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the interior works (hereinafter “instant contract”) of the Defendant’s branch office located in the Nam Sea-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area (hereinafter “Defendant branch office”) for the interior works (hereinafter “instant construction”) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On November 9, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted the following contract with C, a Chinese branch president.

A Indones fishery business operator A is a harmful South-do dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna e

The total amount of the classical fee shall be KRW 950,000,000, and the amount of the classical fee shall be measured by 15,000,000,000 shocks, tablers, chairss, and tables within the classical cost.

On November 9, 2016, the defendant (a seal) A (a seal) joint representative E, F’s overseas branch director C (Signature) representative in the relation without the name of the owner, and the seal will not be stamped.

C (Signature)

C. On December 27, 2016, and December 28, 2016, the Defendant Branch held a business opening ceremony. The Defendant paid KRW 576,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s subcontractor out of the construction price under the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the cause of the claim is that the Defendant entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff and the instant construction cost of KRW 800,000,000 and completed the instant construction work. Since the Defendant did not pay KRW 224,00,000 out of the instant construction cost, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said unpaid construction cost and damages for delay.

3. The gist of the defense, etc. is that the plaintiff only entered into an oral contract with the defendant, and the contract of this case was voluntarily prepared by the plaintiff and C, and its validity cannot be recognized against the defendant. The plaintiff and the subcontractor of the plaintiff did not complete the construction work properly.