A. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants for a new construction of multi-household D-based housing (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The Plaintiff delivered to the Defendants a total of KRW 379,00,00 (including KRW 29,00,000 of the instant construction contract amount) for the total construction cost agreed upon between the parties, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 360,698,200, and KRW 627,620, and KRW 620, and KRW 502,00,000 paid by the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiff, and KRW 379,000,000, and KRW 379,000,000 (including KRW 29,000,000, KRW 379,000, KRW 627,620,000, KRW 2067,307,20067).

B. As to the claim for additional construction cost, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 10,000,00 for additional construction cost on the ground that the Defendants demanded the alteration of the balcony entrance of the four heading rooms of this case among the loans of this case, unlike the previous design after completion of the structural construction work (i.e., four heading rooms x construction cost per heading room x 2,500,000). However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to perform additional construction in addition to the construction cost originally agreed upon among the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

or to pay the cost for such construction.

No evidence exists to acknowledge that the construction cost in question is KRW 10,00,000, and rather, according to the overall purport of the testimony and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness E, and F, there is a prior agreement with the original, the defendant, and the architect F on the alteration of the balcony entrance before the formation of the instant construction contract ( October 10, 2014).

This part of the claim is reasonable.