1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120,60,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 14, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim was determined by the Plaintiff from the Defendant on October 12, 2012 as follows: (a) the construction cost of the electrical construction among the construction works for the construction of a multi-family complex located in Ulsan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si (hereinafter referred to as “nuridong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 120,600,000 won for the above construction balance and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Defendant penalty for delay 23,056,000 won [the construction price including value-added tax = 99,600,000 won or the Defendant’s claim) x 0.1% x 236 days for delay x 236 days since the Plaintiff completed the construction work on March 31, 2013, which was over the limit of 236 days from the date of completion of the agreement. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Defendant a penalty for delay x 9,60,000 won (the construction price, including value-added tax, shall be 105,00,000 won) x 236 days from the date of the construction site office’s monthly salary, oil, site management fee, etc. In addition, the Defendant suffered damages of KRW 96,00,000 in total due to the foregoing construction site’s delay and damages claim against the Plaintiff’

On November 22, 2013, there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff had completed the fixed electrical construction on November 22, 2013, even though the period for completing the contract has expired.

However, in full view of the purport of the whole argument in Gap evidence No. 11, the plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the amount of the fixed electrical construction and the same multi-household.