The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work around November 2013.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant company's on-site manager is obligated to pay the additional construction cost as to the part of the attached Table that was not included in the specifications (Evidence A4) attached to the instant construction contract, and the plaintiff completed the additional construction. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the total construction cost of KRW 30,800,000.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the construction project, which the Plaintiff claimed to implement additionally, is already included in the specifications of the instant construction contract, and thus, did not have any obligation to pay additional construction cost.

3. Determination as to the agreement and implementation of an additional construction project

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as indicated in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of subparagraphs 6-1 and 6-2, the defendant company at the time of the instant construction work can be acknowledged as having prepared and executed a statement of accounts confirming that the plaintiff performed additional construction work equivalent to KRW 16,50,000 (including value-added tax), such as removal of walls, etc. on December 19, 2013. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 1, 2014, after completion of the instant construction work, until April 10, 2015, which is the date the judgment of this case, and from the day after completion of the construction, to the day of full payment, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s additional work price of KRW 30,800,000 based on a written confirmation of work (Evidence A5-1 to 7).