1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,774,180 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 13, 2013 to May 13, 2015.

1. Determination on the claim for the construction cost of a subcontract

A. On June 15, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion was awarded a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 34,700,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the part of the installation of heating and cooling equipment among D-Public Telecomel Construction Works located in Ansan-gu D-si, Ansan-si, the Defendant was awarded a contract by the Defendant for the same year.

7. Until 14. All of the construction works have been completed, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 5,500,000, out of the subcontract price.

B. The defendant does not clearly dispute the facts of the above claim, and thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 5,500,000 for the unpaid construction cost.

In regard to this, the defendant argues that since the defendant paid 5 million won to the part constructed by the plaintiff due to the defect that the plaintiff did not install pipes, the defendant's payment should be offset or deducted from the plaintiff's claim amount. However, although Eul's statement in subparagraph 1 alone is insufficient to recognize this fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

2. Determination as to the claim for the cost of installing air conditioners by the defendant company

A. On November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff completed all construction works by concluding a contract with the Defendant for the installation of air conditioners and cooling equipment in the Defendant Company’s office as the construction cost of KRW 3,000,000 (excluding value-added tax). However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 3,300,000 for the construction cost. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion

B. The judgment of the defendant is based on the facts that the construction cost of heating and cooling equipment to be paid to the plaintiff is 3,500,000,000. However, according to each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 11 (including the serial number), it is recognized that the defendant's employees E paid the construction cost of the above 3,50,000 won with his credit card on behalf of the plaintiff for three months, and the plaintiff does not clearly dispute this fact. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part is filed.