1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 76,239,705 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 23, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, around February 2013, contracted the construction of a 5-story interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration among the new construction of department stores.

B. In February 2013, the Defendant awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for the metal works among the above interior interior interior interior interior decoration works (hereinafter “instant construction”).

With respect to the instant construction project, the Plaintiff presented a written estimate to the Defendant as to the construction period from February 2013 to June 2013, and as to the construction amount of KRW 115,000,000 (excluding the matters other than value-added tax and estimate separately).

C. However, as there is a change in the design for the interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration, the instant construction is also carried out with metal works not contained in the quotation instead of partially using the items and quantity scheduled in the original quotation.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant completed construction works as above, and the Plaintiff agreed to determine the construction cost after consultation on the volume and unit price of the items used. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction works.

The Defendant paid KRW 115,00,000 to the Plaintiff as the instant construction cost.

E. After the completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate to the Defendant as to total construction cost of KRW 262,51,852 (excluding value-added tax), but the Defendant did not consent to the quantity and unit price attached to the said written estimate.

F. The appraiser appraised the instant construction cost as KRW 184,308,823 (the initial planned construction cost would be an additional KRW 119,083,676, instead of reducing KRW 65,225,147).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 5 evidence (including virtual number), appraiser A's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is equivalent to the construction cost required by the Corporation, the Defendant is entitled to the Plaintiff’s remaining construction cost of KRW 76,239,705 [=69,308,823 (=184,308,823) - value-added tax of KRW 115,00,000,000.