1. Defendant Lord Construction Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 56,500,00 and its full payment from April 10, 2014.

1. The portion of the claim against Defendant Loy Construction Co., Ltd.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the entire purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap (excluding the part on the stamp image of the defendant Gap) and two to five (Ga number), it is recognized that the plaintiff was unable to receive KRW 56,500,000 out of the subcontract price even if the plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for construction work of KRW 126,50,000 among the construction works for the New Living Facilities located in the Chungcheongnam-gun Group B (hereinafter "new construction works in this case") from the defendant Dai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "new construction works in this case"), and thus, the defendant Doi Construction Co., Ltd is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the construction price of KRW 56,50,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 10, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

B. As to the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the construction contract, Defendant 1 agreed that Defendant 1, the owner of the instant new construction project at the time of the said subcontract agreement, agreed to pay the Plaintiff the subcontract price, and thus, Defendant A is fully responsible for paying the subcontract price. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff’s defects occurred in the part of the construction of the instant new construction project, the repair work was not performed properly. As such, Defendant 1 agreed that Defendant 1 would entirely pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for the subcontract price against Defendant 1, 200 Construction Co., Ltd. was unreasonable.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the parts of the tin materials constructed by the Plaintiff were not repaired due to defects in the construction works, the above assertion by Defendant Hah General Construction Corporation is without merit.

2. The part of the claim against the defendant A

A. The gist of both parties’ assertion is that Defendant hys comprehensive construction corporation, the contractor of the instant new construction project, is the Plaintiff.