1. The Defendant’s KRW 39.1 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from November 17, 2016 to June 12, 2017.

1. On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff (contractor) concluded the following two construction contracts with Defendant (contractor) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant sub-contractor”).

The name of construction: The construction work price of Taed Co., Ltd. at Pakju New Site: the construction price of KRW 737,000,000 on March 1, 2016: The name of construction: The construction cost of KRW 440,00,000: the construction period of KRW 440,000: March 24-1, 2016; the Plaintiff demanded the suspension of construction cost difficult for the Plaintiff to continue the construction work on March 24, 2016; and the Defendant consented thereto.

The construction cost paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 1,674,428,00 exceeding the contract amount of KRW 1,177,00,000.

【Ground for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number, if any)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the completed portion of November 2016 to pay the amount of KRW 297,00,000, and the amount of KRW 133,100,000, and the amount of KRW 430,010,000 in total, but the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 391,00,000 among them. However, the Defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 39.1 million.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice for KRW 112,032,00 among the construction costs paid to the Plaintiff, and the reason why the amount initially agreed was 500 million or more shall be clearly explained.

The plaintiff terminated the construction of this case without justifiable grounds, thereby causing damage to the defendant, and did not properly perform the duty of repairing defects for the part already constructed.

3. First of all, the Plaintiff agreed on the portion completed on November 2016 as KRW 430,010,000, and the Defendant did not actively deny the agreement, and the Defendant did not immediately deny the issuance of the tax invoice. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement by both parties, the Defendant and the Plaintiff on November 2016.