2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On April 16, 2010, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the interior of “D” located in “D” (hereinafter “instant main construction”) as the construction cost of KRW 23,760,000 (including value-added tax).

B. The Defendant asked the Plaintiff to perform interior works without design drawings provided by the head office to start the business of D sales stores. Accordingly, the Plaintiff started the instant construction without design drawings by referring to the interior interior interior interior of other D sales stores, which had been operating the business.

C. In addition to the instant construction, the Defendant requested the installation of an internal gambling place, a carcter, goods storage, etc., and the Plaintiff was awarded a contract by the Defendant for the said additional construction (hereinafter “the instant additional construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 3,058,00 (including value added tax).

On April 2010, the Plaintiff completed all the main and additional construction works of this case.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 5, and 7 (including each number in the case of additional number), witness E and F respectively, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the plaintiff completed the principal construction and additional construction upon the defendant's request, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal construction and additional construction costs and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1 The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not properly perform the main construction and additional construction in this case, and accordingly, the Plaintiff would waive the construction cost to the Defendant around April 2010 to the effect that the Plaintiff would not receive the principal construction and additional construction cost. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that there was no obligation to pay the construction cost. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.