1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,795,840 as well as 20% per annum from October 18, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the facts in which there is no dispute between the parties to the determination of the cause of the claim, the evidence in Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings:

① The Plaintiff runs a construction business under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant runs a construction business under the trade name of “D”.

② Around July 2012, the Defendant received the construction work of E on the F, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, a farming corporation, at KRW 273,00,000 for the first floor work price, and at KRW 99,00,000 for the second floor work price.

(hereinafter referred to as the “new construction of this case”). G Representative H affixed a seal to the contract of new construction of this case as a guarantor.

③ Around July 2012, the Plaintiff paid sewage to the Defendant for the construction cost of the instant newly constructed construction cost of KRW 32,795,840, and completed the said construction work around August 2012.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 32,795,840 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 18, 2013 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the portion of the first floor among the instant new construction works was H, and the Defendant only performed the second floor construction works, and that the instant new construction contract was made in the name of the Defendant only on documents upon the request of H without a construction license. The Plaintiff who entered into a construction contract with H on the first floor among the new construction works in the instant case with H must claim the construction cost against H, and H paid the amount equivalent to KRW 10 million out of the construction cost.

The plaintiff concluded a construction contract with the defendant on the first floor among the new construction works in this case. There is no evidence to acknowledge that Eul evidence No. 2, which is contrary to this recognition, was hard to believe, otherwise, and H has repaid the amount equivalent to 11 million won out of the construction work price in this case.