1. The Defendant’s KRW 198,400,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from December 30, 2017 to December 6, 2018.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Facts 1) The plaintiff is a company with the objective of electrical construction business, specialized fire-fighting system construction business, etc., and the defendant is a company with the objective of building construction business, civil engineering work business, etc. 2) the defendant is a high molecule company in Korea (hereinafter "Korean high molecule").

(2) On June 28, 2017, among the new construction works of the Korean High Subdivision, the Plaintiff subcontracted the payment of the construction cost on November 30, 2017, the construction cost of KRW 14850,000 (including value-added tax) and the payment method of the completed portion to the Plaintiff within 15 days from the date of receipt from the ordering person. (b) On November 3, 2017, the Defendant, who received a contract from the Korean High Subdivision, set the Korea High Subdivision Electric Construction (including the hydroelectric Construction) as KRW 10,000 (including value-added tax) as the date of completion to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2017, and the construction cost of KRW 177,600,000 (including value-added tax).

3) The Defendant’s payment of the construction price agreed upon, and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 120,50,000,000 to the Plaintiff on three occasions from November 27, 2017 to December 29, 2017 as the said subcontract price. [Grounds for recognition] Facts that there is no dispute, and evidence A Nos. 1 through 5 (the number of pages is included; hereinafter the same shall apply).

- The purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts established prior to the determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 24 million (i.e., KRW 1776 million - KRW 125 million), and delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff provisionally seized the defendant's claim for the construction price against the high-ranking families in Korea, the defendant's assertion that the construction price should be paid directly by the high-ranking families in Korea.

However, the above circumstances alone cannot be said that the defendant is exempted from the obligation to pay the price to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff still is entitled to do so.