A. The Plaintiff is a company whose business purpose is the indoor construction business, etc., and the Defendant operates a coffee franchise franchise franchise franchise store (hereinafter “date tower”) in the trade name of “DDR”, which is a company engaged in coffee chain, direct store, agency operation, etc.

B. Around 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the interior work of the Radern A branch at KRW 1,522,400,000 for the total construction cost of the 14 branches, including that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the Radern A branch at KRW 14 branches.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract” in total, and the contract pertaining thereto shall be referred to as the “instant construction contract”).

The Plaintiff completed the instant construction from May 2013 to September 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground of claim and its determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff completed all of the instant construction works under the instant construction contract, the Defendant did not pay KRW 24 million out of the price. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of construction cost of KRW 24 million that is unpaid. Therefore, the Defendant unilaterally demanded the Plaintiff to change the design or change the materials, etc., and had the Plaintiff perform construction works at a location in which the location and distance of the Plaintiff is remote.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the construction cost equivalent to KRW 1.64 billion, which exceeds the agreed construction cost of KRW 1,522,400,000, which exceeds KRW 120 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the additional construction cost of KRW 120 million.

On the other hand, the construction work of this case requires much more cost than the construction cost stipulated in the construction contract of this case, but the defendant unfairly uses superior position to pay the construction cost of this case.