A. On October 10, 2015, the Defendant received a contract from an incorporated association D with the amount of KRW 308,000,000 for the construction cost of the E church construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. The Plaintiff subcontracted the instant construction to the Defendant and completed the instant construction, and the instant church obtained approval for use on June 24, 2016.

(c)

The Plaintiff received construction cost of KRW 200,987,867 from the Defendant.

is the person.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry B in the Evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. While the Plaintiff was performing the instant construction project, KRW 20,024,727 of the additional construction cost, such as the cost of double-generations during the said construction period, and KRW 28,242,50 of the additional construction cost due to a change in the construction content.

The Defendant was obligated to pay a total of KRW 258,267,227 to the Plaintiff (=210,00,000 KRW 20,024,727 KRW 28,242,50). However, the Defendant received a total of KRW 200,987,867 from October 2015 to April 2016, and thus, was obligated to pay a total of KRW 57,279,360 (i.e., KRW 258,267,227 - KRW 20,987,867) and damages for delay.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 4 of the construction contract Gap and the defendant's employee Gap evidence, on January 21, 2016, the F Deputy Director, who was the representative director G and H, sent the Plaintiff's letter of construction work of this case to the representative director G and H warden at KRW 210,000,000. Thus, the Plaintiff and the defendant entered into a construction contract of this case at KRW 210,000,000 for the construction work price of this case with the defendant.

It is reasonable to view it.

Although the Defendant asserts that there was no construction contract concluded with the Plaintiff, the Defendant first acknowledged the fact that the instant construction contract was concluded with the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim for additional construction cost cannot be accepted, and in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant sent and received e-mail giving confirmation of construction cost (Evidence A No. 4)