1. The Defendant’s KRW 95,152,213 as well as 6% per annum from June 30, 2013 to September 19, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 23, 2012, the Defendant Company re-subcontracted the Plaintiff Company with the contract price of KRW 737 million (including value added tax) that was subcontracted by Nonparty A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. Around June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff Company completed the instant construction work. The construction price directly received from the Defendant Company is the total amount of KRW 530 million.

In addition, the construction cost paid directly by the defendant company to C who is on-site workers with the consent of the plaintiff company is 5 million won.

In addition, the construction cost that the Plaintiff Company received directly from the non-party company is the total of KRW 53,847,787.

Therefore, the construction cost that the Plaintiff Company did not receive from the Defendant Company is KRW 95,152,213 ($737,00,000-53,000-53,000,000-5,000-53,847,787).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Gap evidence 10, 11-1, each entry, 2, and 3, witness D's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of construction work unpaid to the Plaintiff KRW 95,152,213 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 30, 2013, which is the date of service of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of the instant claim from September 19, 2014, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

In this regard, the defendant argued that the defendant company could not comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case since the defendant company paid the above payment of the contract price to the non-party company or the non-party company's field manager D with the consent of the plaintiff company. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant company consented to the payment of the contract price to the non-party company or the non-party company's site manager D.