1. The Defendant’s KRW 118,544,80 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from May 27, 2014 to September 30, 2015.

1. The Plaintiff’s execution of construction works, around 2013, filed a contract with the Defendant for a contract with the Plaintiff to perform civil construction works with respect to each land sold by the Defendant to the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “C”), the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Pule”) and the Seogjin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “C, etc.”), and thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the damages for delay, including the portion C 61,949,80 won, and the portion C 31,295,000 won, and the portion C 25,30,000 won, and the portion C 118,54,800 won (=61,949,800 won, 295,000 won, 25,300 won), and damages for delay.

According to the result of the appraisal of construction cost as to appraiser D in this Court, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s execution of the foregoing civil construction works requires a total of KRW 118,544,800 for total construction cost (hereinafter “instant civil construction works”). 2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion on February

A. Although the Defendant alleged that the conclusion of the contract for the instant civil works and the determination thereof was related to the conclusion of the contract for the instant civil works, the Defendant acquired multiple parcels of land, such as Yongcheon-si E in around 2009 and sold it to C in around 2013, the Defendant did not have concluded a contract for the instant civil works with the Plaintiff.

(2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant sold the above land to C, etc., while entering into a contract with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s performance of the instant civil engineering work. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment; (b) evidence Nos. 2; (c) evidence Nos. 8-1, 10, 11, 12 (including each number); and (c) evidence Nos. 15; and (d) evidence Nos. 17, 19, and 23 (including each number); and (c) evidence Nos. 17, 17, and 19, and 23;

The evidence submitted by the defendant, such as evidence Nos. 1 through 4, which seems contrary to this, is not interfered with the above recognition, so the defendant's argument on this is all.