2. The defendant 45,538.

A. On October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the construction cost of KRW 781,00,000 (including value-added tax); (b) October 10, 2012; and (c) on January 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”); and (d) received each of the supply and demand (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff newly built the instant building, and the Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant building from the Kimpo-si on April 22, 2013.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 6770,300,000 to the construction cost up to the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows, upon the Defendant’s request, carried out the additional construction work as follows.

The additional construction cost of 16,00,000 won for 2 external board construction (the modification and extension of the external board construction cost) 10,450,000 won for 3rdle construction work (the extension of the outer board construction cost) 2,456,200 won for 4 stairs handle construction work 3.456,00 won for 3.46,00 won for 4,880,00 additional construction work for 4,000 won for 6 short-term additional construction work for 4,60,000 won for 7 additional construction work for 4,60,000 won for 8 elevator construction work (the additional construction cost of 9,60,000 won for 5,842,60,000 won for 76466,76468,26466,200 won for 200,000 won for 7864646,26467,2000 won for 200

B. All of the above construction works asserted by the Plaintiff as additional construction works are not the additional construction works included in the original construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff.