1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 1, 2014 to June 17, 2016.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in subparagraph 1 of this case, the fact that the Defendant, on October 8, 2013, prepared and executed a letter with the content that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,000,000 payable to the Plaintiff in installments from October 8, 2013 to December 2013 (hereinafter “each letter of this case”), and there is no counter-proof, and the fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,000 out of the above letter of claim to the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties.

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,000,000 payable out of the agreed amount of KRW 25,000,000 under the instant written statement, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from January 1, 2014 to June 17, 2016, which is the day following the date of payment, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant ordered the defendant's request for the suspension of construction and the defendant's damage was caused to the defendant, and the plaintiff continued to claim the construction price to the defendant, and the plaintiff prepared a written statement different from the fact without any choice but no choice but to make it invalid, regardless of the situation where the plaintiff's request for the suspension of construction and the defendant's damage was caused to the defendant.

According to Article 107 of the Civil Code, the declaration of intention of the truth is effective, and it can be invalidated only when the other party knew or could have known that the other party is not a truth-finding. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was aware or could have known that the defendant was not a truth-finding at the time of the preparation of the letter of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's defense

4. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.