1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,076,250 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from July 3, 2014 to October 22, 2015, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract with C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) for the C’s “D Urban Housing Construction Work” as the construction cost of KRW 101,00,000, and the construction period from October 4, 2012 to November 19, 2012.

B. At the time of the said subcontract, the Defendant (the actual owner) agreed to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff jointly with C.

C. Around November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the pelvis construction.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not receive KRW 45,548,050 of the construction price up to now even after the plaintiff completed the above construction work.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff is the amount according to the evidence No. 11, which the Defendant finally organized the payment details of KRW 7,331,141 ( KRW 101,00,000 - KRW 93,668,859) in consideration of the amount that the Defendant paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff in connection with the construction work.

B. We examine the first priority of determination on construction delay.

As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff completed the construction work around November 27, 2012, for which the scheduled construction period has exceeded the scheduled construction period.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 6, the plaintiff completed the construction until November 27, 2012, " October 31, 2012" and will not hinder the follow-up process, and if the plaintiff fails to comply therewith, he/she shall be liable for damage caused thereby.

“A” is recognized as having been submitted to the subcontractor C by preparing a letter of commitment to that effect.

According to this, it is reasonable to view that the construction period of this case was extended between the parties by November 27, 2012.

Therefore, the defendant's argument for delay of construction is not accepted.

2 We examine the following arguments regarding defects.

proceedings shall be held on the images of evidence 10 of this title.