1. The Defendant’s KRW 124,840,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from April 1, 2013 to April 7, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a subcontract agreement with the Defendant on construction cost of KRW 283,00,000 (hereinafter “instant construction agreement”) regarding landscaping planting construction among the construction works for a sports club development project for which the Defendant was awarded a contract (hereinafter “instant construction works”). On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction works on the Hamannman on December 2012.

B. On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a subcontract construction contract with the content that the instant construction cost shall be KRW 267,000,000 as the Plaintiff demanded the payment of the construction cost.

C. The Defendant paid KRW 142,160,000 to the Plaintiff regarding the instant construction contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant, pursuant to the instant construction contract, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction price of 124,840,000 won (=267,00,000 won - 142,160,000 won) under the instant construction contract, as sought by the Plaintiff, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from April 1, 2013 until April 7, 2016 when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the day of full payment.

I would like to say.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. In relation to the contract for the reduction of construction price, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the construction price of the instant construction contract at KRW 144,080,000,000, around February 8, 2013. However, each of the entries in the evidence of subparagraphs B through B (including the serial number) is insufficient to recognize it, and the written withdrawal submitted by the Plaintiff stated that “the written withdrawal submitted by the Plaintiff will be withdrawn by mutual agreement to pay the right after entering this written withdrawal.”