1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 11, 2013 to March 26, 2015, and the next day.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the construction price with the Defendant for the construction of an officetel in which the construction work was completed by entering into a subcontract for KRW 1,065,900,000 for the construction cost, among the construction works for the construction of an officetel, which was ordered by the Defendant-based limited liability company. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to KRW 13,100,000 for additional construction works, such as the installation of an officetel-type inspection room and the installation of walls, and completed the additional construction work. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 979,00,000 in total with the construction cost, does not conflict between the parties.

If so, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won (1,065,90,000 13,100,000 - 979,000,000) and delay damages, barring special circumstances.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the construction cost of KRW 10,00,000 was paid at the Defendant’s request when there was a defect in the construction process in a remote area constructed by another business operator due to the defect in the construction process conducted by the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, Gap evidence No. 9 submitted by the plaintiff as evidence is the details of the tenant inspection and its photograph. The above evidence alone caused defects in other processes (original process) not included in the plaintiff's construction scope and defects in the remote area completed by the plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that there has been KRW 10,000,000 as additional construction cost by repairing it at the request of the defendant or at the request of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. The judgment of the defendant's assertion was executed by changing the construction cost of KRW 69,00,00,000, which is the difference, to the general public in a remote area where the construction is in progress, and the construction cost of KRW 20,000,00, which is the difference should be reduced. ② The plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,00 to the occupants as the repair cost due to the occurrence of defects in the remote area constructed by the plaintiff, and there was a defect repair cost of KRW 3,01,90, in addition, the defect repair cost of KRW 3,01,90.