1. The Defendant’s KRW 65,932,262 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 13, 2014 to August 12, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in interior construction business with the trade name C.

B. On or around December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff is the instant apartment owned by the Defendant, which is not more than 243.35m2 square meters of the section of exclusive ownership of 402m2, Nam-gu, Busan, Busan, which is owned by the Defendant.

(2) The construction contract of this case is referred to as the “construction contract of this case” with the content that construction cost shall be paid within seven days from the date of completion of the construction work, including value-added tax, fiscal calculation after construction, period of construction before February 7, 2014, advance payment of KRW 40 million, progress payment of KRW 40 million, and remainder payment of KRW 135,00,000 for the interior works.

(c) Around December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff commenced the foregoing construction and completed the construction on or around February 27, 2014, and the Defendant moved into the instant apartment on February 28, 2014. D. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million as an advance payment on December 16, 2013, and KRW 40 million as an intermediate payment on January 8, 2014, respectively. [Grounds for Recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, and Nonparty 1 through 5 (each entry, including the serial number, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of construction price in this case is KRW 150 million including value-added tax, and the Defendant asserts that the amount of construction price in this case is KRW 135 million without value-added tax.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the construction amount was KRW 135 million (100,000,000 when including value-added tax and value-added tax), but it is recognized that there was an agreement to adjust after construction.

Therefore, it is necessary to assess the construction cost incurred after comparing the quotation attached to the instant construction contract and the actual construction cost, etc. to verify the unconstruction and the changed construction cost.

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence 1, 2, 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraiser E’s appraisal, the part of the apartment of this case subject to additional construction unlike the first estimate.