1. The Defendant’s KRW 72,992,150 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from April 10, 2014 to December 5, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant received a new construction project from D, etc., the owners of land outside C and seven lots of land (hereinafter “owners”) to operate on the above land or to operate on the same six roads on the ground (hereinafter “instant Public Notice Board”).

B. As above, the Defendant subcontracted the structural construction and retaining wall construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the building owner to the Plaintiff, among the new construction works of the Gowon that was contracted from the building owner.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. From October 1, 2013 to November 30, 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant construction was carried out and the Defendant incurred a total of KRW 215,350,000 ( personnel expenses) claims against the Defendant as follows. After ascertaining the site, the Director E at the Construction Site of the Public Notice Center of the instant case recognized that the construction cost related to the instant construction was KRW 215,350,000. In addition, the Defendant also presented to the owner of the instant construction documents, stating that the construction cost of the instant construction was KRW 215,350,000, out of the construction cost, when claiming the construction cost of the New Construction Project of the instant Public Notice Center, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 215,00,000, out of the construction cost as follows.

30,000 won in retaining wall, 30,000 won in 41,282,00 won in retaining wall, 20,000 won in 20,000 won in east wall, 160,000 won in east wall, 160,840,000 won in east tree 21,840,000 won in Da, 190,000 won in Da, Da, Da, Da, Da, 120,00 won in Da, Da, Da, 120,00 won in Do, Da, Da, 160,000 in Du, 160,280,00 in Had Had Do, 170,70,740,000 won in Do, 1605,05 won in Do, 605,005 won in Do, 60505 won in aggregate

B. 1) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, the documents containing the details of construction cost as alleged by the plaintiff were prepared, and based on such documents, the documents stating “bandon wall construction and steel container construction” (the end of evidence No. 3 of this case’s Gowon construction work at the end of evidence No. 3).