1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 39,981,70 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from June 8, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around January 2016, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for “the instant construction works, such as tide, aesthetic field, waterproof, tidal wave, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction works”)” among the toilet improvement works for small and medium schools ordered by the Defendant from the Office of Education in Gyeonggi-do, and commenced the construction on or around the 20th of the same month.

B. After that, on February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a formal construction contract with the construction period from December 28, 2015 to March 6, 2016, and with the construction amount of KRW 36,347,00 (excluding value-added tax).

C. On February 2016, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to request the Defendant to preferentially pay KRW 20,000,000 of the instant construction cost, which was put into the instant construction work. However, the Defendant rejected the request, and thereafter, the Plaintiff did not pay the instant construction cost at all even after the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on March 11, 2016.

On the other hand, on March 11, 2016, the Defendant underwent an inspection on the completion of the whole of the toilets improvement works for the future middle schools including the instant construction works. At that time, the Defendant received KRW 205,395,750,750 from the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education subtracting the amount of the first order amount of KRW 223,741,940 from KRW 5,96,940 from the amount of the first order and the settlement reduction of KRW 217,745,940 from the amount of the 217,745,000 from the adjusted reduction of KRW 217,769,250 from the amount

E. Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s continued request for payment, the Defendant asserted the settlement of the construction cost of this case and did not pay the construction cost of this case up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant served the plaintiff with a copy of the complaint of this case as requested by the plaintiff, including the value-added tax of KRW 36,347,00,000 (=36,347,000) and the value-added tax of KRW 3,634,70 (=36,347,000).