The defendant is against the plaintiff.

A. On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a supply of and demand for the ALAF for the new building of Hongcheon-gun Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), and the details of the said contract are as follows.

1. The name of the project: The period of construction for the construction of the Redcheon-gun Clessless Construction Works in Gangwon-do: From October 31, 2016 to November 30, 2016;

2. Amount: 70,000,000 won (amounting to 2,00,000 won higher than the material): 35,000,000 won intermediate payment: 14,000,000 won for intermediate payment after completion of work: 14,00,000 won for intermediate payment after completion of work: 7,00,000 won for requisitioned materials and any balance after completion of work: 7,00,000 won (within one week after completion of work);

3. Period for liability for defects: One year after completion.

4. A special engineer: A special engineer shall be constructed on the right-hand side of the fixed side of this building with an eco-sex, and the remainder shall be constructed with an aluminium non-noise specified in the contract specifications.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 40,000,000 as the construction price of the instant case from the Defendant.

C. Upon the Defendant’s failure to pay the construction cost under the pretext of part payments, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the construction cost on or around February 10, 2017, and the Defendant’s failure to comply with such demand, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant construction contract by mail proving the content of the contract on April 10, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay the construction cost even after completion of 90% of the construction work under the instant construction contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid construction cost and the lodging cost to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the result of the appraisal by the appraiser D and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant construction work can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff reached 88.79%, which had occurred at the time of suspending the construction work (including the wall wall construction work of the rooftop tower, the Defendant is also included in the scope of the construction work, but the evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge it.