1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,05,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from July 19, 2016 to December 6, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From June 25, 2015 to June 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for construction works for interior and external interior interior interior interior interior and external interior interior telecom with B, and completed all construction works under the said contract.

B. Around February 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works for the construction period from February 19, 2016 to February 29, 2016 with respect to the external test works of Defendant C funeral hall and C funeral hall; and the construction cost of 32,505,000 construction cost; and the additional construction cost of 2,60,000 won was subsequently agreed to later settle the accounts; and the additional construction cost of 2,60,000 won was added.

C. By July 18, 2016, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 21,50,000 as the construction cost of the construction contract under the above paragraphs (a) and (b) (hereinafter “each of the instant construction contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 46,05,000 won (including additional construction works) (2,600,000 won - 2,600,000 won - 21,500,000 won) and 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from July 19, 2016 to December 6, 2016, the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant agreed to receive the construction cost of the instant case from the waiting development company instead of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the construction cost of the instant case to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for each of the construction works in this case with the Defendant, and the construction work price in this case from the atmosphere development instead of the Defendant.