1. The Defendant’s KRW 75,730,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 8, 2015 to June 15, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant contracted the construction of the construction of the 4th underground and the 9th floor above ground from the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu 225-4, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, with the construction cost of the machinery and fire-fighting facility works (hereinafter “instant facility works”) from the Plaintiff on March 1, 2014, with the construction cost of KRW 690,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from March 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

While the Plaintiff was carrying out the instant construction works, there was a dispute between the Defendant and the Defendant regarding the issue at the construction site and the payment of wages from May 2014. On September 5, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a letter of public notice to the effect that the instant subcontract was cancelled and the construction was terminated.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 281,00,000 from March 2014 to June 2014 as the construction price under the instant subcontract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. According to the appraisal by the appraiser A (hereinafter “the appraiser of this case”) of this court, the height rate of the facility of this case is 95%. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the construction cost of 440,050,000 won [the construction cost of the completed portion = KRW 721,050,000 [the construction cost of the agreed portion = KRW 721,050,000 [including value-added tax] x 95%] - the fixed height rate of 281,00,000] and delay damages.

B. As the result of the appraisal by the Defendant’s appraiser, it is not reliable as it was derived from the specifications of the Defendant’s arbitrary claim for utility model registration, and the height rate of the construction of the instant facility is after the suspension of the construction of the instant architectural office, a supervisory company.