1. The Defendant’s KRW 178,341,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 6% per annum from March 21, 2016 to May 25, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. Around August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive a contract by setting the contract amount of KRW 740,000,000 from the Defendant to November 15, 2015, for “A art gallery interior (the interior) and outside (the testestestestestestese) construction (the value-added tax separate), and the construction period as the contract period.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

After completing the Plaintiff’s construction work on or around December 20, 2015, the Defendant opened an art gallery (hereinafter “instant art gallery”) on December 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff completed both additional construction and supplementary construction around January 13, 2016.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 730 million out of the construction cost under the instant contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 3 and 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. After the conclusion of the instant contract with the Defendant, the construction cost was increased to KRW 842.6 million (including value-added tax) according to the agreement with the Defendant, and the Defendant requested more than five additional construction and supplementary construction works, and the additional construction was carried out based on the estimates of the additional construction works.

As a result of the final settlement of accounts, including additional construction, the construction cost is KRW 97,68 million (including increased construction cost of KRW 842,660 million (including increased construction cost of KRW 139,000,000,000). The Plaintiff received only KRW 732,60,000 from the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 242,000,000,000,000, which is the difference.

Provided, That only KRW 243,072,00, which deducts the replacement cost for the destroyed Chapter 4 glass, 1,128,000.

B. Defendant 1) Since the instant contract was concluded as a package of design and construction contracts, the part partially modified is either a construction within the scope of the instant contract, or a part that the Plaintiff failed to properly perform is merely a reconstruction. (2) The Plaintiff and the construction cost increase or an additional construction work progress.