1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,55,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 8, 201 to December 1, 2011 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition: (a) the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for access roads and ancillary civil works from the Defendant on November 19, 2008 to the 297 million won (including value-added tax) from among the new construction works of the C Welfare Center (hereinafter “instant construction works”) affiliated with the Defendant on the ground, including Chungcheongnam-gun, Hong-gun, etc. on the ground of the Defendant on November 19, 2008; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 31, 2009 when the Plaintiff was performing the instant construction works; and (c) the fact that the period of the instant construction works is about 30% as of December 31, 2009 is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or that there is a witness evidence Nos. 1, 27, and 2, and witness D’s testimony, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 89,100,000 ( = 297,000,000 x 0.3) and damages for delay.

As of December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff claimed the payment of the construction cost corresponding thereto by asserting that the construction work of this case was completed in excess of 30% and at least 70% as seen earlier. However, each of the items stated in Gap 5, 8, and evidence Nos. 28-1, which correspond to the fact that the Plaintiff had completed the construction work in excess of the amount recognized above, is difficult to believe in light of the evidence Nos. 27, Eul 2, and witness D’s testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense of deposit is a defense that he deposited part of the construction price of the instant case, and the Defendant deposited KRW 33,749,000 out of the construction price of the instant case with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit on January 7, 2011. Thus, the Defendant’s defense is with merit.

B. Offset defense is defense that the defendant offsets the plaintiff's damage claim due to defects in the construction of this case against the plaintiff's claim for construction price of this case.

l.p. g., p.