1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding 255,605,103 won and damages for delay shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract with the Defendant to enter into a contract for the construction project (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the period from June 15, 2015 to February 9, 2016, which is to be concluded with the Defendant during the construction period of KRW 1,632,151,292 (Contract Deposit KRW 244,82,693).

B. The instant construction contract was extended by the construction period until April 2, 2016, following the agreement on the amendment of the contract made on January 11, 2016, and the contract amount was increased to KRW 1,675,90,701 through the agreement on the amendment of the contract made on March 31, 2016.

C. On October 4, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the contract on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to complete the construction within the deadline for completion and that the liquidated damages exceeded the contract deposit, and that the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the final settlement of accounts by evaluating the amount of the construction works executed by the Plaintiff as KRW 1,265,90,000, around February 7, 2017.

The Plaintiff received KRW 1,070,471,240 from the Defendant from June 2015 to July 2016, under the name of advance payment, progress payment, labor cost, etc. related to the instant construction contract.

No. 32,594,620 won in C 2,54,620 on April 27, 2016, the date of the issuance of an order No. 4-3, 2016, Eul evidence No. 27,189,850 won in the National Health Insurance Corporation (or the main branch office) 27,189,850 on August 24, 2017, the evidence No. 4-13,915,180 in the Republic of Korea (or the main branch office) No. 4-24 on August 24, 2017, the evidence No. 4-243,14,207, and 32, other than D, 32,183,14,207 won in the aggregate of the evidence No. 3-65, Feb. 27, 2019; and

E. The Plaintiff’s creditors issued a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price against the Defendant, or seized the above claims in accordance with the procedure for the disposition of arrears under the National Tax Collection Act. At that time, the above seizure and collection order and the notification of seizure were served on the Defendant, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4 respectively.