1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 67,837,300 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from February 24, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff: (a) from August 30, 2013 to October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for blasting construction work following the production of mination stone in the construction site of the construction site in the Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; (b) received a total of KRW 115,00,000 out of the blasting construction cost of KRW 174,837,300, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 59,837,300; and (c) on September 30, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 8,000,000 to the Defendant by account transfer on September 30, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including a branch number, if any), the inquiry result of the Dong Cheongju Tax Office, the result of the response to the financial transaction of the new bank, the purport of the entire pleadings

B. According to the above facts finding, the defendant is obligated to pay the above construction cost, borrowed money, and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

C. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion is not to make blasting daily at the defendant's construction site as stated in the blasting work log (No. 2) but, if necessary, the blasting work should be conducted, and the construction cost should be calculated by comprehensively assessing the number of times of monthly blasting and the monthly blasting work. The plaintiff's claim in this case is nothing more than the plaintiff's arbitrary calculation and it cannot be complied with.

However, according to the result of the fact-finding of the East Jeju District Tax Office, the defendant can find the fact that the defendant completed the scheduled and final return of value-added tax as an electronic tax invoice (No. A. 1-11) issued by the plaintiff. If so, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant at that time received any objection against the plaintiff's blasting construction cost of this case, and therefore, the above argument by

2. Thus, the defendant concludes that the above construction price and the loan totaling KRW 67,837,300 = 59,837,300 = 8,000.