1. The Defendant’s KRW 107,740,468 as well as 5% per annum from September 1, 2014 to December 8, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

On August 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of urban residential housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the Defendant and Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and three parcels on the ground as follows:

(2) The construction period is from September 15, 2012 to February 25, 2013, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract on November 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) stipulating that the construction cost of reinforced concrete among the instant construction works shall be KRW 642,00,000, and the construction period shall be from November 20, 2012 to April 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

In the process of performing the instant reinforced concrete construction, it was pointed out that underground structures were built differently from the design drawing by the Defendant, and discussed the changes in design drawings and cost sharing issues with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the instant construction was suspended on December 24, 2013 without agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the appraiser C's appraisal result, the fact inquiry result of this court's inquiry about Eul, and the plaintiff's assertion about the ground for claim as to the whole purport of the pleading was suspended on December 24, 2013 while the construction of this case was being conducted through the Cheongto Industry, a subcontractor, and thus, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 123,200,000 for the term construction work executed until December 24, 2013 against the defendant.

As to this, although the Defendant intended to conclude the instant contract with the Cheongto Industry, it merely concluded the instant contract in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Cheongto Industry did not have a construction license, and thus, the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes an indication of Hungary, and thus becomes null and void, the Plaintiff’s payment for the instant work against the Defendant.