1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,400,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from October 17, 2018 to April 17, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant Company entered into a contract with the Plaintiff Company to entrust the management of the remaining land excluded from the urban development project district of the Defendant Company by the time of expropriation or public sale.

B. Accordingly, the lower court issued a warrant of vicarious execution on September 23, 2014 to remove and restore the site artificial structures (building, obstacle, etc.; hereinafter “instant building”) outside C and 27 parcels, which were owned by the Plaintiff Company on behalf of the Defendant Company, to the Defendant Company by September 25, 2014. On October 31, 2014, the lower court issued a warrant of vicarious execution on the ground that the Defendant Company failed to comply with the order.

C. On November 2011, 2014, Plaintiff Company removed the instant building.

On July 1, 2015, the representative in-house director D of the Defendant Company sent an official document requesting that the Plaintiff Company, which removed the instant building, pay 35 million won out of the deposit money, and pay the remainder as local tax arrears.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 17, Eul evidence 4 (including the number of each branch), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the fact that the defendant company did not directly remove the building of this case, but the fact that the building of this case was removed itself is recognized, the defendant company agreed to take charge of the removal of the building of this case and pay 35 million won in return (excluding value added tax) to the plaintiff company around November 201, 2014. Thus, the defendant company sought 38.5 million won among the plaintiff company that removed the building of this case (=35 million won).