1. The Defendant’s KRW 73.5 million with respect to the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 6, 2015 to December 3, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. On June 30, 2015, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff regarding the principal Dong-dong and the dormitory-dong waterproof Construction Work (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) among them on July 29, 2015, by entering into a contract with the Office of Education of the same Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Dong-dong”) on the rooftop waterproof Work of the principal Dong-dong and the dormitory-dong.

B. The content of the instant construction contract is as follows: (a) the construction cost is KRW 1.5 million (including value added tax); (b) the construction period is from July 29, 2015 to August 31, 2015; and (c) the payment of construction cost is 30% of the down payment at the time of concluding the contract; and (d) the remainder is paid within five days after the Defendant received the completion payment from the Busan Metropolitan City Dong Office of Education after completing the construction work.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 31.5 million, and the Plaintiff completed the construction within the agreed period, and the Defendant received all the completion payment from the Busan Metropolitan City Dong Office of Education around September 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 11, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction price of KRW 73.5 million and the Defendant’s delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 6, 2015 to December 3, 2015, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, from October 6, 2015, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the purport that the defendant should deduct the above amount since the defendant had appointed the 24,645,000 won by paying the fee to the Eastern Office of Education, which is the ordering agent, for the plaintiff to use the patented title presses. However, there is no evidence that the plaintiff paid the royalties as above, and the defendant's assertion itself is paid to the plaintiff.