1. The Defendant’s KRW 151,941,790 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 13, 2013 to July 25, 2014.

1.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective descriptions set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and Eul evidence No. 2 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

The plaintiff operates steel wholesale and retail business with the trade name of B, and the defendant is a company that operates building construction business, etc.

B. On May 24, 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for construction cost of KRW 436,040,000 (including value-added tax) for the construction of the instant plant and the construction cost of KRW 436,040,00 (including the value-added tax) during the construction period and from June 3, 2013 to September 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. At present, the construction work of the above factory is completed, and the defendant paid the plaintiff KRW 176,00,000 out of the construction cost under the contract of this case.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 260,040,000 and delay damages pursuant to the contract of this case, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the Defendant asserts that, since the Plaintiff did not perform the steel and steel framed construction after the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant brought KRW 117,862,90 into KRW 117,862,99 and instead built steel and reinforced concrete construction, the Defendant should deduct the said KRW 117,862,90 from the construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff.

In light of the facts that the Plaintiff did not perform steel and steel framed construction after the conclusion of the instant contract, there is no dispute between the parties, and the Defendant spent KRW 108,098,210 in aggregate for performing steel and steel framed construction in relation to the said new factory construction in full view of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings. However, the entries in the evidence No. 3 alone in the above recognition scope.