1. The Defendant’s KRW 201,66,396 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 9, 2015 to August 17, 2018.

Meanwhile, the Defendant’s claim for the construction price against the Defendant was set off on or before August 7, 2015, when the Plaintiff completed the construction work, and was in the same set-off on the same day, and the Defendant’s reply on October 15, 2015, which included the Defendant’s declaration of intent to set off each of the above claims, is apparent in the record that it was served on the Plaintiff on October 19, 2015. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price against the Defendant was extinguished within the extent equal to the Defendant’s damage claim against the Plaintiff on the set-off date.

6) Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s defense is with merit, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost of this case against the Defendant remains (=280,000,000 - 20,033,604 won). (B) According to the above facts of set-off of damages for delay, it is recognized that the Plaintiff completed the construction work of this case on April 14, 2015 and August 7, 2015, which was 115, from April 14, 2015, which was the date of completion of the construction work of this case, the Plaintiff has the obligation to pay to the Defendant 46 million won (=400,000 won + 1/100), * 115 days).

2. On this ground, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant construction was delayed while carrying out construction or alteration works at the Defendant’s request, and that the completion of construction is delayed due to the delay in the construction of gas and electric power plant directly operated by the Defendant, and that there was no cause attributable to the Plaintiff as to

As seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was in progress of the additional construction or alteration work at the Defendant’s request. The fact that the urban gas use contract and the certificate of water source facilities of the instant building were issued on May 21, 2015 and July 13, 2015, respectively, after the completion date of the instant construction project, is not disputed between the parties, but the issuance was delayed due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant.

There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant intentionally delayed the issuance, and rather, it is in light of the foregoing.