1. The Defendant’s KRW 48,290,660 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from July 27, 2013 to July 4, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant from the Defendant to the CEC (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for the construction of Aluminium plant among the third unit (Welfare Dong B) construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”), and the construction work was performed from December 15, 2012 to April 2013, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract”). B.

Upon entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) the construction period from December 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013 (from February 30, 2012 to February 28, 2012 as indicated in the contract) and the contract amount shall be KRW 163,790,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) the construction amount shall be calculated based on the quantity installed by the Plaintiff; (c) the construction amount shall be calculated on the basis of the quantity installed by the Plaintiff; and (d) the agreement was reached to settle

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction cost of the instant case executed by the Plaintiff is KRW 223,961,870,00 in total of KRW 158,036,450 in basic construction cost and KRW 65,925,420 in additional construction cost, and the Defendant paid only KRW 132,170,610 in total. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 91,791,260 in total and delay damages.

(2) The construction cost under the instant contract asserted by the Defendant is KRW 163,790,00 and the first additional construction cost of KRW 4,536,60,00, and the second additional construction cost of KRW 73,268,80, the construction cost would be KRW 95,511,460 if the Defendant deducts the total of the reduction in quantity and the Defendant’s personnel supply cost of KRW 73,268,80. As such, there is no remaining construction cost.

B. (1) The judgment (A) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6, Eul's evidence No. 1-1 and Eul's evidence No. 2 as to the construction cost executed by the plaintiff (A) as to the construction cost executed by the plaintiff, the construction cost executed by the plaintiff is 158,036.