A. The Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the “construction of the soft Equipment” at KRW 82,50,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from September 30, 2013 to October 20, 2013.

B. Meanwhile, the written estimate attached to the said written contract contains the following parts: (i) the first type of electrical construction; (ii) the repair and replacement of AC/DC DCRDE andOTR; (iii) the repair and replacement of SERVDDDDDDD andOTR; (iv) the repair and replacement of PLC; (v) the repair and replacement of TNION/itr compound; (vii) the repair and replacement of machinery other than paragraph (6); and (vii) the cutting of flood facilities, etc.

C. The Plaintiff completed construction around January 2014, and the Defendant paid KRW 84,500,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion completed the additional construction equivalent to KRW 37,400,000 (including value-added tax). As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 35,400,000 remaining amount after deducting the remainder (=84,500,000 - 82,500,000), by appropriating the repayment amount for the installation of a seter equipment.

b) January 17, 2017.

Judgment

1) According to the records of evidence No. 2 and the appraisal result of appraiser C, it is recognized that the Plaintiff completed the additional construction work. Thus, the Defendant shall pay the remainder of 35,400,000 won to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance to the Plaintiff. 2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that there was no additional construction contract with the Plaintiff, and that there was no authority to do so, and that there was a seal between the Plaintiff and the estimate (the part of the estimate) attached to evidence No. 6 (the contract) that the Defendant signed and sealed. In light of the fact that there is no authority to do so, it is reasonable to deem that the additional construction contract was included in the contents of the contract.

3. The defendant.