1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 31,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 20, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff (mutual C) contracted from the Defendant (mutual D) for the relocation and installation of soil washing facilities and the installation and trial operation (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the construction cost of KRW 75 million (excluding value-added tax) and the contract period from July 20, 2015 to August 14, 2015.

B. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff was confirmed by the Defendant to complete the trial operation of the instant construction project.

C. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff received respectively payment of KRW 11 million from the Defendant, KRW 25 million for the progress payment on August 10, 2015, and KRW 15 million for the progress payment on August 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 31.5 million (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 75 million for the construction work in the instant case (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 75 million - KRW 11 million for the down payment of KRW 25 million as of July 24, 2015 - KRW 25 million as of August 10, 2015 - the progress payment of KRW 15 million as of August 25, 2015) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as of the day following the date of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order from October 20 to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff suffered losses of additional expenses (charges 2 million won, additional input personnel expenses, and expenses KRW 5 million) and additional construction expenses incurred due to the defects in the instant construction works after completing construction works on August 21, 2015, when the period of the instant construction contract (from July 20, 2015 to August 14, 2015), but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the Defendant confirmed the completion of the trial operation of the instant construction works, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

The Defendant cannot pay the instant construction cost until the dispute on the cost of heavy equipment used by the Plaintiff between EP Engineering Co., Ltd. and the Defendant, the main contractor of the instant construction, becomes final and conclusive.