1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,450,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from December 15, 2015 to August 19, 2016.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by combining the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5.

The plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is to build solar equipment construction business.

B. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to receive a contract for installation works of solar power plants from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the following content.

Electricity generation KW: 99.75K Total construction cost: 200 million won (excluding value-added tax): 100 million won intermediate payment in the form of KRW 10 million, and the remainder in the form of a structure ruptures: The special agreement in the form of KRW 90 million: pents.

The cost of land category, including civil works, shall be paid by the person ordering (defendant) for viewing.

Monitoring shall be installed.

Two million won for viewing and development activities shall be borne by the company (Plaintiff).

Article 14 (Matters under Special Agreement) The stamp and expenses for the basic civil engineering works and the revolving construction costs shall be separately for items to be paid by the present business owner.

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 60 million on December 4, 2015, and KRW 100 million on December 7, 2015 from the Defendant respectively.

The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on December 14, 2015.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. (1) The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion on the exemption of value-added tax (A) asserts that the instant construction contract was exempted from value-added tax in light of the following circumstances by means of cutting off and processing the value-added tax portion in the instant construction contract. (b) The Defendant’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion in light of the circumstances acknowledged below, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the shapes of evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the value-added tax out of the instant construction contract.