1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,788,700 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 1, 2014 to May 7, 2015.

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the arguments, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on May 28, 2014 that “total construction amount shall be adjusted to KRW 33,788,700, and the Defendant shall pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff until July 31, 2014, and if the said amount is not paid, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,788,700, and interest shall be paid to the Plaintiff by July 31, 2014,” and the Defendant may be found to have not paid KRW 33,788,700 by July 31, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff from August 1, 2014, which is the date following the agreed payment period.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a claim for late payment damages from May 29, 2014, the day following the agreed date, but according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff set the deadline for payment of the agreed amount between the defendant and the defendant on July 31, 2014, and there is no evidence to deem that it was omitted before that it was delayed payment, and even according to the terms of the above agreement, the defendant is liable for the interest on the total construction amount, and the starting point of calculation is not specified. Therefore, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,788,700 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, which is the day following the deadline for payment of the above contract amounting to 33,78,700 won and the following day after the deadline for payment of the contract, until May 7, 2015, which is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as