1. The Defendant’s KRW 90,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 9, 2015 to December 14, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on June 30, 2015, for the new construction of the Seongbuk-si Navy (including value-added tax) and on June 30, 2015, and concluded a modified contract on June 30, 2015, and concluded a contract on June 30, 2015 to change the contract amount of KRW 660,000,000,000, and the completion date of the completion plan on September 8, 2015, and completed the construction work at the scheduled completion date.

The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 570,000,000 from the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] A. A. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remainder of the construction cost under the modified contract amounting to KRW 90,00,000, and additional construction cost due to modification of design, and damages for delay therefrom.

The evidence No. 3 alone lacks to specify whether the Plaintiff’s additional construction work was executed, scope, construction cost, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the claim for the payment of additional construction cost is without merit.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 90,000,000 under the contract and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from September 9, 2015 to December 14, 2016, which is the date the instant judgment is rendered by the Defendant, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant asserts that the defendant's defense against the plaintiff's defense is offset against the plaintiff's claim for construction price as a damage claim in lieu of defect repair due to defects such as the height of water on the inside floor and outside floor of the factory, the crack of the outside floor of the factory, the removal of factory facilities, the crack of the back floor of the factory, etc.

The evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize the occurrence of defects and the scope of compensation, and the defendant's defense is not acceptable as there is no other evidence.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified within the scope of the above recognition.