A. The Plaintiff is an individual business operator who operates the interior work business, etc. with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On January 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to perform the instant construction work for the toilets of the first and third floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. The Plaintiff performed the instant construction from January 5, 2016 to January 14, 2016, but there was a defect, such as that part of the wall is removed from the surface of the wall and that part of the floor is a department.

While the construction of the instant building was underway, the Defendant additionally requested the Plaintiff to construct a toilet site for the first floor of the instant building. While the Plaintiff had installed materials suitable for the said toilet site on the wall, the Plaintiff did not construct the fixing and finishing work of the tent materials.

E. Of the instant construction of toilets for the first floor of the instant building that the Defendant requested, the part of the installation of a screen and the replacement of a shower was omitted.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was completed most of the instant construction work, and the construction cost is KRW 3,136,500, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 3,136,500 and the damages for delay thereof. 2) According to the reasoning of the aforementioned evidence and the entire arguments, it is recognized that the Plaintiff completed the main part of the instant construction work, such as Typt, among the instant construction work.

However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the construction cost of this case is KRW 3,136,500 only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the construction cost of this case at KRW 2,500,000 on the third date for pleading of this Court.