1. The Defendant’s KRW 153,485,529 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from February 2, 2017 to February 8, 2018, and the following.

. Determination on the Grounds for Appeal

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant delayed performing the contract for 159 days from August 1, 2016 to January 6, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of liquidated damages shall be KRW 181,89,896,000,000, including value added tax, multiplied by the number of delayed days of KRW 159 and the rate of liquidated damages of KRW 0.01.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the standard amount of liquidated damages for delay as “contractual amount” under Article 27(1) of the General Terms and Conditions of Contracts for Private Construction Works attached to the contract document (Evidence A).

The contract amount of the instant construction project is KRW 1,040,000,000, and the value-added tax is excluded from the said amount.

Therefore, 1,040,000 won except value added tax is the standard amount for liquidated damages.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da19025 Decided February 11, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29217 Decided September 23, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2015Da231672, 231689 Decided December 27, 2016, etc.

Therefore, the penalty for delay to be paid by the defendant is 165,360,000 won (1,040,000,000 won)* 159 days* 0.01).

The plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the construction period on four occasions by December 31, 2016. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a duty to pay compensation for delay until December 31, 2016. (2) The construction period was extended four times on the wind delayed due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the construction cost agreed to pay directly to sewage-based companies.

Since delay of construction is not caused by the reason attributable to the defendant, the defendant has no obligation to pay the compensation for delay.

3) The Plaintiff changed the design four times and additionally required 165 days for the changed construction. Since delay of construction is not caused by the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay compensation for delay. 4) The Plaintiff failed to pay KRW 11,874,471 out of the construction cost directly paid, and there was KRW 14,959,602 of the additional construction cost for the change of design.