1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 16, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Grounds for recognition;

A. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on the amount of KRW 35,000,000 (value-added tax separate and intermediate payment shall be paid according to the progress rate, and the remainder shall be paid within a week after completion of the construction work) with respect to electricity, telecommunication, and fire-fighting construction among the new construction works of a factory of a company B (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), between June 16, 2016 and September 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), and received KRW 3,00,000 from the Defendant on the date of the contract.

B. After performing construction works under the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of pre-use inspection from the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation on September 8, 2016, and received the certificate of pre-use inspection from Asan City on the telecommunications portion on September 2, 2016. On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff received a certificate of pre-use inspection of information and communications construction works from the Cheongnam-do fire station (approval for Use) on the fire-fighting part.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, since the plaintiff completed construction work under the construction contract of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 35,500,000 won remaining after subtracting 3,000,000 won (=38,500,000 won-3,000 won) from the price of the construction contract of this case plus 38,50,000 won (including value-added tax) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 16, 2017 to the date of full payment as requested by the plaintiff as well as after the due date for payment.

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff erroneously constructed ELD, installed only two of the four of the former half parts, and did not submit the defective performance bond to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the price of the construction contract in this case cannot be complied with.