A. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the new construction of the three-story housing located in Jeju (hereinafter “instant housing”) (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the term “the construction cost of KRW 626,80,000, and the construction period of KRW 10,000, and the term from October 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and agreed on the payment date of the said construction cost as follows.

1) Contract deposit of KRW 125,00,000 (20% of the cost of construction): within seven days after the contract is concluded: KRW 94,000 for the first portion: KRW 94,00,000 for the second portion: KRW 157,00 for the second portion for the second portion (25% of the cost of construction) at the 2nd floor floor floor slive concrete straw-si 3): KRW 18,000 for the second portion for the second portion (30% of the cost of construction) after the completion of the aggregate construction: KRW 55,00 for the remainder of KRW 62,80,000 for the second portion for the second portion (5: 10% of the cost of construction after completion)

B. After the conclusion of the foregoing contract, the Plaintiff performed the instant construction work. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 506,000,000 in total, among the completion payments on September 23, 2014, KRW 125,000,000, KRW 94,000 for the first portion on November 27, 2014, KRW 157,000 for the second portion on January 15, 2015, KRW 157,000 for the second portion on March 30, 2015, KRW 100,000 for the third portion on March 30, 2015, and KRW 30,000 for the last portion on May 7, 2015.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 2, and Gap’s evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 120,800,000 (=626,800,000 - 506,000,000) under the instant contract, barring special circumstances.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim for additional construction cost is the cause of this part of the claim, and the Plaintiff implemented additional construction cost of KRW 15,396,000 in total, including interior fishing installation, at the Defendant’s request during the execution of the instant construction work. As such, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff additional construction cost equivalent to the said amount.