1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 19, 2016 to August 21, 2018, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2015, the Plaintiff, as a construction business operator, concluded the Rotterdam construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) between the Defendant and the Defendant by setting the construction cost of KRW 90,000,000 as verbal with respect to the cosmetics located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “cosmetics”), and the construction period by February 11, 2016, which is the scheduled opening date of the cosmetics.

B. The instant construction contract period was changed to February 19, 2016, and the Defendant opened the instant beauty room on the same day.

C. On January 5, 2016, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 70,00,000,000 as construction price, and KRW 10,000,000 on January 13, 2016, and KRW 40,000,000 on February 2, 2016, and KRW 10,000 on February 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work was completed under the instant construction contract and the additional construction work was also conducted under the instant construction contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the accrued construction cost of KRW 20,000,000 (i.e., KRW 90,000,000 - KRW 70,000) and the additional construction cost of KRW 17,00,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion failed to complete construction works included in the instant construction contract, such as installation of special lighting fixtures by February 19, 2016, which is the opening date of the beauty art room in the instant case, construction of high-class floor materials, electricity expansion, installation of signboards, installation of a medicine yard and anacry display place, and manufacture of banner. There were defects such as electric defect, lighting defect, water leakage, etc. in the Plaintiff’s construction work.

The Defendant paid KRW 10,00,000 to E for the remaining construction works and repair of defects, and paid KRW 4,675,000 for the installation cost of special lighting that the Plaintiff did not install.

Unlike the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff did not perform the floor construction as a high-class carpet material, so KRW 4,833,900 corresponding to the difference shall be excluded from the construction cost.