A. On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for a construction project with the Defendant to pay each balance within 15 days after the completion of construction, with respect to machinery and fire-fighting equipment works among the Ulsan Model C’s New Construction Works ordered by C (including additional tax) and the construction period from September 14, 2015 to October 5, 2015, and advance payment 15 million won, within three days after concluding the contract, with respect to the term ingredients, within 15 million won until September 25, 2015, and 15 days after the completion of construction.

B. Unlike the existing design drawings, the Plaintiff knew that the existing height of the model down of the construction site was higher than 5 meters, and requested additional construction costs to the Defendant, and completed the construction with the consent of the Defendant.

Additional construction cost has been incurred in total of 29,490,340 won, such as personnel and material cost.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1-14 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 45,690,340, which remains after deducting the fixed payment amount of KRW 46,50,000,00 as the plaintiff (=62,700,000 won - KRW 29,490,340 - 46,500,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 12, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the service of the instant payment order, which the plaintiff seeks, unless there are other special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant’s additional construction cost is not recognized by the original office, and it cannot be paid. The Defendant’s direct payment of the repair cost was made by the Defendant due to the Plaintiff’s failure to cause defect repair, and the Defendant’s direct payment of the repair cost was entirely damaged due to the exposure to the Plaintiff’s claim. Thus, as seen earlier, it was acknowledged that there was a payment agreement on the additional construction cost between the Defendant, i.e., the Plaintiff, and the Defendant on the payment of the additional construction cost. The written evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone is due to the defect occurrence and defect of the instant construction work.