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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On March 22, 2013, the Defendant concluded the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff on March 22, 2013, awarded a contract for the construction of multi-family houses to the Plaintiff at KRW 240,00,000 for the cost (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. 1) During the process of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff, while performing the instant construction project, suspended construction on June 29, 2013 due to a dispute over additional construction cost. 2) The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to resume the instant construction project on August 1, 2013, and expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant construction contract unless the instant construction project is completed within the contract period.

However, the Plaintiff did not resume the instant construction.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant directly operated the instant construction project and completed the instant construction project at the end of October 2013. (c) At the time of the Plaintiff’s discontinuance of the instant construction project as a result of the appraisal and assessment, the fixed height rate of the instant construction project was 73.27% as listed below. The construction cost used in the construction cost of KRW 236,097,181 was 86,134,726 for the portion of the non-construction cost of KRW 86,137,726 for the non-construction cost of KRW 83.27% for the construction cost of KRW 73.27% for the construction cost of KRW 73.27% for the construction cost of KRW 740,000 x the fixed height rate (=240,000 x KRW 73.27% 175,84

D. From March 23, 2013 to June 28, 2013, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as the price for the instant construction project.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On June 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay the value-added tax of KRW 9,500,000 as value-added tax for KRW 240,00,000 for the cost of the construction at issue. Since the interest-added tax at the time when the Plaintiff ceased the construction at issue is KRW 177,432,00, the price of the construction at issue, including value-added tax, is KRW 186,932,00 ( KRW 177,432,00).

B. Meanwhile, around August 16, 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 35,00,000 as the price for additional construction, such as wall installation works, to the payment of KRW 35,00,00.

C. Therefore, the defendant.