1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from October 1, 2014 to May 11, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from the Defendant for the construction of scrinks and scrinks (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction of new urban residential housing B in order to ensure that the Plaintiff completed the construction on August 24, 2014. On March 2, 2015, approval for the use of the said residential housing was granted.

(A) Although the Defendant asserts that the construction work was not completed due to the partial construction of the Lustch-to the purport that the construction work was not completed, it is reasonable to deem that the construction work in this case was completed in light of social norms in view of the following grounds for recognition and the circumstances that the use of the residential house was approved. The construction completion under the contract was determined to be paid in cash within 30 business days after the completion of construction, with the construction cost of KRW 50,000,00

[Grounds for recognition] A. 1, 2, 2, 2 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings is that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 50,000,000 and delay damages.

Although the Plaintiff sought a payment of value-added tax of KRW 5,00,000, there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement to pay the value-added tax separately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Although the Defendant asserts that there was a defect due to the defective construction in the new place and Dollst, it is not enough to recognize that there was a defect in the construction in the construction in this case with the defect repair claim only 3 evidence alone.

Rather, according to the testimony of the witness C and D, the instant construction is deemed to have completed all the finishing process without any special defect.

B. The Defendant asserts that the set-off of the liquidated damages is set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the liquidated damages on the ground that the instant construction was not completed until August 7, 2015.

As seen earlier, the instant construction works around August 2014.