1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,545,400 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from February 21, 2017 to September 28, 2017.

1. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) decided on the cause of the claim from the Defendant on June 30, 2015, and completed the construction work after being awarded a contract for electrical construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) out of A and one parcel of land (including value added tax) from the Defendant; (b) the amount unpaid out of the construction cost was 28,545,400; (c) the Plaintiff entered an additional construction for the change and addition at the Defendant’s request; and (d) the amount equivalent to the said additional construction cost was 8,00,000,000, and the fact that the said additional construction cost was 8,000,000, is either a dispute between the parties, or that the entire purport of each entry (including a number of items) and the entire arguments as set forth in subparagraphs A through 9 (including a number)

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 36,545,40 won (=28,545,400 won) and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the date of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the date of the said payment, to the Plaintiff, for dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation, from February 21, 2017 until September 28, 2017, which is the date of the decision of this Court, to the day of full payment.

In addition, the Plaintiff sought payment of the above money to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s construction aggregate construction work delayed for five months, which led to the Plaintiff’s temporary stay at the Plaintiff’s site to meet the above schedule, and the amount of KRW 10,600,000 was paid for the food and accommodation expenses of the on-site human resources during the pertinent period. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

This part of the claim is without merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant requires additional settlement as to the defective part of the construction works executed by the Plaintiff.