1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 60,160,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 6% per annum from November 11, 2017 to January 8, 2018; and (b) January 9, 2018.

Around August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff received the construction cost of KRW 143,00,000 from the Defendant, among the new construction works of the factory in Gangnam-si, by determining the construction cost of KRW 143,00,000 (including additional tax) and the construction period of September 10, 2017; the Plaintiff additionally provided internal partitions equivalent to KRW 16,160,000; the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the construction cost on November 10, 2017 after the Plaintiff completed the construction work; the Defendant paid the construction cost of KRW 9,00,000 to the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties, or by taking into account the respective entries in subparagraphs 1 through 5 (Partial omitted) and the entire purport of pleadings.

According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 60,160,000 (=143,000 won - 99,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 11, 2017 to January 8, 2018, when the original copy of payment order corresponding to the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant, which was served on the Defendant as the due date for payment, barring any special circumstance.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that D Co., Ltd., the prime contractor, did not pay part of the construction cost on the grounds of defective construction, and the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff until the payment of the construction cost is made. However, it is difficult to recognize that the defects alleged by the prime contractor have occurred due to the reasons attributable to the Plaintiff solely by the images of Nos. 2, 3, and 5 or evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3 (Evidence No. 3) (the text message sent from the prime contractor to the Defendant (Evidence No. 3)). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are accepted.