A. (1) On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract with the Defendant and the Seoul Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the construction period of KRW 137 million, and the construction period from September 10, 2013 to November 30, 2013.

(2) On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an additional construction agreement with the Defendant to install broadcasting equipment in addition to KRW 28,921,00 from January 27, 2014 to February 15, 2014.

(3) On February 15, 2014, the Plaintiff completed all the above construction, and received KRW 94 million from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

나. 판단 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 원고에게 원고가 구하는 미지급 공사대금 71,900,000원(≒ 1억 3,700만 원 28,921,000원 - 9,400만 원) 및 이에 대하여 완공일 다음날인 2014. 2. 16.부터 이 사건 소장 송달일인 2015. 7. 3.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 소송촉진등에 관한 특례법에 따라 2015. 9. 30.까지 연 20%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion on the additional construction contract was written in know of the Defendant representative director, agreed not to claim the additional construction cost when the initial contract was concluded, and the additional construction cost need not be paid due to the need to settle the value-added tax on the construction cost.

B. (1) The judgment of the defendant is that the additional construction contract has been concluded with the defendant's employee who uses the defendant's official seal, so the additional construction contract has been lawfully concluded, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) According to the evidence No. 1, the original contract for construction is not claimed since the additional matters, other than checks and drawings, were not originally received from the ordering authority.