2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for construction of the 4th floor building Seoul Jung-gu B (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 262,500,000 (hereinafter “instant construction”) and completed the construction, but did not receive any balance of KRW 22,50,000 from the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s request, requested the D architect office to prepare design drawings and building permit procedures for constructing a new building on the land of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.

D A certified architect completed a design drawing and applied for a building permit, but the defendant did not pay the service cost of KRW 10,761,00.

On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid the service cost of KRW 10,761,00 to the D architect office on behalf of the Defendant.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 33,261,00 to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the claim for the remainder of the construction work

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of repayment 1), the Defendant asserted that all of the instant construction cost was paid, the Defendant paid KRW 265,000,000 to the Plaintiff as a sum of the instant construction cost from November 11, 2013 to May 14, 2014 (the instant construction contract was concluded, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that KRW 30,000,000 paid on November 11, 201, the date on which the instant construction contract was concluded, is part of the instant construction cost).

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff, after the conclusion of the instant construction contract, stated that the Defendant, in addition to the instant construction project, constructed the outer wall of the instant building from the ston to the brick and stone and completed the additional construction project after concluding an agreement with the Defendant on KRW 25 million with the additional construction cost, and that the said additional construction cost paid by the Defendant included KRW 25 million in the additional construction cost. Thus, whether there was an agreement on the additional construction of the Plaintiff’s assertion.