2. The Plaintiff, as to the cause of the claim, made a verbal agreement with the Defendant to pay the instant construction cost of KRW 39,000,000 (including additional tax, KRW 42,900,00,00 if the value-added tax is included). As such, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the remainder of KRW 22,90,00 (including additional tax) to the Defendant.

With respect to the claim that the construction cost of this case is KRW 42,900,000 (including additional tax), it is not sufficient to recognize only the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the testimony of the concerned witness D, E, and F, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

However, inasmuch as the Defendant is 40,000,000 won for the instant construction cost, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 20,000,000 (=40,000,000 - 20,000) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from June 21, 2012, which is the day following the day when the instant complaint was served as requested by the Plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation, until April 17, 2014, which is the date when the instant complaint was served by the court of final judgment, to the day when the Defendant has fully repaid the obligation, barring any special circumstances.

3. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff's subcontractor paid approximately KRW 16,00,000 (he heating and cooling KRW 7,920,000 signboards, film KRW 4,000, KRW 00, KRW 3500,000, KRW 700, and KRW 700,000 for electricity business operators, and KRW 7,00,000 for electricity business operators due to defective electrical construction, and the defendant directly paid KRW 7,00,000 for electrical construction, and the defendant paid KRW 2,00,000 to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff does not remain to pay the construction price to be reduced to the plaintiff.