A. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant for interior remodeling works on the five-story floor, setting the construction cost of KRW 143 million for the period from June 16, 2014 to August 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. The Plaintiff completed the construction work under the instant construction contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 143 million and the 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 October 27, 2015 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. The Defendant asserted that, on March 28, 2014, the Defendant merely concluded a contract for interior repair works on the 300,000 won of the cost of construction (Evidence 1) with the primary Defendant set forth KRW 88 million of the cost of construction (Evidence 1) and that, rather than actually concluding the instant contract for construction works, which are interior remodeling works on the 5th floor of the CMoMoel, D, the actual operator of the Plaintiff, is entitled to sell at the highest price later, if so,” and that the Plaintiff would make a false construction contract (Evidence 1) with the Plaintiff’s “a formally made it possible for the Plaintiff to benefit from tax reduction or exemption, etc. during the process.”

However, in light of the appraisal results of appraiser E, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's assertion only with the descriptions of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the defect part and the non-construction part exist, and thus, the amount necessary for the completion of the defect repair or non-construction part should be deducted or offset. However, it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion only by the description and image of the evidence No. 4.