1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,522,404 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 16, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the installation of air conditioners among the cooperation system works by the branch offices of our bank B by the Defendant, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the failure to receive the construction cost of KRW 43,522,404.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 43,522,404 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 16, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff caused a fire due to negligence among the above B branch construction works. If the plaintiff combines the compensation for damages, the above site, and the deposit money for defects in each construction site executed by the plaintiff, the amount that the plaintiff is liable to pay to the defendant is up to 309,491,400 won, and the offset against this.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of the judgment Nos. 3, 4, and 5, while the Plaintiff’s employees were engaged in air-conditioning pipeing operations at the construction site of the above B branch, fire occurred due to the transfer of the flame to the margin heat of the outer wall, and on the ground that D Co., Ltd., which was under business preparation at the construction site of the above B branch, suffered property damage due to fire at the Seoul Central District Court (2016Gadan20209) on January 28, 2016, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation against C and Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., however, the above facts alone are difficult to recognize the existence and amount of the Defendant’s claim for compensation against the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.