A. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name called C, and conducted the wholesale and retail construction business of air conditioners, and the Defendant runs the business of installing and selling air conditioners with the trade name of D.

B. On June 16, 2014, the Defendant contracted the construction amount of the construction amount to FB’s 14th floor system among the construction works for constructing a new G hospital in Busan Shipping Daegu H, which was ordered by G Hospital to Meal well-being Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction works”), 650 million won (including 250 million won for the electric exchange system 400 million won for the electric exchange system, including value added tax), the construction period from June 20, 2014 to May 31, 2015, and the liquidated damages rate to 0.3% per day.

C. However, the F made preparations for the instant construction before November 2014 due to the problem of fairness in the field, and waived construction around November 30, 2014, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff, who used an office such as F, to continue the instant construction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff consented to the proposal and suspended on July 12, 2015 while performing the instant construction from around that time, and the flag rate up to that time is 81.8%.

However, although the Plaintiff actually succeeded to the construction of the instant construction, the Plaintiff did not prepare a contract form with the Defendant, despite the Defendant’s demand.

On the other hand, the construction works of this case executed by the Plaintiff are 14,623,440 won to repair defective construction works.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, 14 through 18 (including paper numbers), the appraiser I's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction in accordance with the contract with the Defendant as the cause of the claim, as well as the additional construction of KRW 101,827,206 or KRW 120 million at the Defendant’s request, which led to the Plaintiff’s remainder of the construction work.