1. The Defendant paid KRW 50,910,629 to the Plaintiff KRW 6% per annum from September 24, 2013 to November 12, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 15, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant on September 15, 201 with respect to the construction of a factory C (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 510 million, the construction period from September 15, 201 to December 31, 201, and the construction commencement from around that time.

B. The Defendant’s change in the business agreement led to the failure of the Plaintiff to perform the construction work, but the Plaintiff was finally determined as impossible to change the design with the consent of the military unit on November 3, 201, and the construction work was carried out as the original design.

C. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction and completed the inspection of completion on March 26, 2012 from the strike market, but did not receive KRW 53,695,466 for the remainder of the construction.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Entry of Evidence A No. 12]

2. Comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s recognition of the obligation to pay the remainder of construction works, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the remainder of construction works in KRW 53,695,466.

However, the defendant asserts that his obligation for the construction work of this case, the Plaintiff's obligation for compensation for delay, the Plaintiff's obligation for repair of defects, and the obligation for the payment of defect bonds are offset against the equal

3. Defendant’s defense of set-off

A. (1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that there was KRW 45,390,000 (89 x 510 million x 1/1,000) for the delayed 89 days since the Plaintiff completed the instant construction before March 29, 2012, even though the Plaintiff completed the construction work until December 31, 2011.

(2) During the instant construction project, the Defendant failed to simultaneously carry out the construction project due to the change of the business consent, and the Plaintiff was determined to be unable to modify the design with the consent of the field military unit on November 3, 201 at least one half of the beginning date of the construction project, and the construction project was carried out according to the original design, even if it was decided on November 3, 201 to carry out the construction project as originally designed.