1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,260,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from May 30, 2015 to December 22, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant who implements a housing redevelopment improvement project in the Busan Shipping Daegu Do-dong 2, 933-159 (hereinafter “instant project zone”) on supply of and demand for management asbestos treatment services at KRW 450 million (excluding value-added tax) from the Defendant who implemented the housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project agreement”).

According to the instant service contract, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the down payment (10%) of KRW 450 million at the expiration of 20 days from the time of relocation, the first progress payment (20%) at the time of the completion of 50% from the time of relocation, the second progress payment (20%) at the time of the completion of 80% from the time of the relocation, the third progress payment (20%) at the time of the completion of 10% from the time of the relocation, and the third progress payment (20%) at the time of completion of 10% from the time of the completion of the asbestos dismantling work

B. At present, the relocation within the instant project zone has been completed by 100%, and the Plaintiff completed the works for dismantling and treating asbestos.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the down payment and the late payment damages for the first and second completed payments of KRW 250 million, excluding the total sum of KRW 225 million and the second and second completed payments of KRW 250,000,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 225,500,000,000,000, and the value-added tax of KRW 225,50,000,000 and the late payment damages.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant clarified that the amount of KRW 20 million out of the service cost when concluding the instant service contract is to be paid to Samsung Law Firm, which the Defendant requested to expropriate and decide. Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 20 million to Samsung Law Firm and paid it on behalf of the Defendant, the above KRW 20 million should be deducted from the remainder of the service cost. (2) The Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff separately from the instant service contract.