1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 22 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from January 1, 2016 to December 27, 2016.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3:

On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new house and warehouse on the land outside Kimhae-si and one parcel of land for KRW 140 million.

B. On October 2015, the time following the completion of the said construction, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to settle the said construction cost of KRW 132 million with the amount reduced by KRW 8 million compared to the initial construction cost, and to receive the full payment within 15 days from the date of approval for the use of new buildings.

C. The Defendant obtained approval for the use of new buildings on December 15, 2015.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 1, 2016 to December 27, 2016, which is the sentencing date of the instant judgment, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of the instant judgment, to the Plaintiff, for the remainder of 22 million won, excluding the amount of KRW 110 million, which the Plaintiff had already been paid, from among the above settlement amount of KRW 132 million, to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged that the above settlement agreement cannot be valid since the construction cost actually invested falls short of 132 million won, which was settled as above on the premise that the construction cost required for the instant construction work is KRW 132 million. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the original defendant settled the above settlement on the premise that the construction cost required for the instant construction work is KRW 132 million. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant did not cooperate with the plaintiff to approve the use of a newly constructed building without complying with the settlement agreement, and it was inevitable to reach the settlement agreement.