A. On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for installation of 10,50,000 won (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 5,500,000 per piece (x 5,500,000 per piece)) on the Gamping site (hereinafter “instant Gamping site”) operated by the Defendant on the ground of Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant Gamping site”). On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into the said Gamping site with the Defendant for construction of 85,80,000,000 won (including value-added tax).

B. Around August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and the Defendant began to operate the instant glamping site from August 9, 2014.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder construction cost of KRW 91,80,000 after deducting KRW 54,50,000 paid by the Plaintiff from the total construction cost of KRW 1,460,300,00 (= KRW 60,500,800,000).

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant paid KRW 1,500,000 for the costs of the purification tank instead of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid KRW 56,00,000 for the total costs of the purification tank to the Plaintiff.

This article argues that this cost should be deducted from the construction cost of this case.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Eul evidence No. 4, the defendant can be acknowledged that the defendant spent KRW 1,500,000 as the costs of installing a septic tank instead of the plaintiff around July 15, 2015. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is with merit.

C. One of the judgment of the defendant's assertion of defects and non-executions is that the plaintiff had failed to perform construction work, such as the result of the attached appraisal.