1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,800,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 6, 2018 to October 18, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts are found to be without dispute between the parties, or recognized in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7 and the purport of all arguments.

A. On April 25, 2017, the Defendant subcontracted to the Plaintiff, among the new construction works of “E” on the ground, including Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, a painting work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) to the Plaintiff at KRW 66 million for the construction cost (including value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

On December 21, 2017, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of commitment to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay, without any condition, the balance of KRW 13 million in the principal construction cost of the instant construction project (excluding value-added tax) and the amount of KRW 35 million in additional construction cost (excluding value-added tax), not later than January 2, 2018, and that it takes priority over the instant subcontract agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant letter of commitment”).

C. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work after the instant letter of undertaking was prepared.

The Plaintiff is a person who has received reimbursement of KRW 14 million out of the amount under the instant commitment.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion shall pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 4,30,000,000,000 for the additional construction cost under the instant promise and the additional construction cost of KRW 5,50,000 under the oral agreement (including value-added tax), total of KRW 58,30,000,000, which is limited to KRW 14,300,000,000

B. According to the facts established prior to the determination, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 52.8 million (i.e., the value-added tax of KRW 13 million for the additional construction cost of KRW 1.35 million for the unpaid construction cost) in accordance with the instant commitment.

The Defendant asserts that the amount of the principal construction work not paid at the time of the preparation of the instant promise is a clerical error in the entry of KRW 11,722,364 (in addition to value-added tax, the entry of KRW 13 million is a clerical error. At the time of the preparation of the instant promise, the Defendant limit the amount of the principal construction work paid from the amount of the original construction work under the instant subcontract.