The Plaintiff supplied sewage by determining the construction cost of KRW 130,00 per average construction cost, and the construction period from September 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, among the newly constructed multi-household housing construction works in the following cities: (a) the Plaintiff supplied electricity from the Defendant.

Accordingly, when calculating the construction cost of the instant case, 21,190,000 won (i.e., 163 square meters in total floor area of 541.20 square meters in total and 164 square meters in total, but prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a claim for construction cost on the basis of 163 square meters in total, and the instant claim amount was calculated on the basis of the above square meters in total. x 130,000 won in case of D-based D-based housing (hereinafter “D--based housing”). 22,360,000 won in total (i.e. 172 square meters x 130,000 won) in cases of D-based housing (hereinafter “D-based housing”).

Upon completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 33,550,000 to the sum of the construction cost of the instant case on March 31, 2017 (i.e., KRW 21,190,000) (= KRW 22,360,000).

The registration of initial ownership was completed on April 20, 2017 with respect to C housing and on May 4, 2017 with respect to D housing.

[Ground of recognition] According to the above facts of recognition as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, and Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 4, and the ground for claim determination as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from April 1, 2017, which is the day following the completion date of construction, to November 10, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant did not conclude a contract with the defendant for the construction work of this case, and the person who prepared the contract for the construction work of this case who is the former representative of the defendant can claim the validity of the contract as E.