1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 10,961,601 and its payment from October 22, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to contract the construction of the new construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) for the first and second class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the part of Jung-si Government C, D’s ground structure, and the first and second class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) with the Plaintiff at KRW 180 million.

B. The details of the building permit and design modification of the instant building are as follows.

A design modification 1, 2-type neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, offices) with a total floor area of 1, 2-type neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, offices), 508.40 square meters and 412.50 square meters and 2-type neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, offices) with a total floor area of 412.50 square meters 412.50 square meters and 1, 2-type neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, resting restaurants), 415.50 square meters, and 1-type neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, resting restaurants), 2-type neighborhood living facilities (offices), 415.50 square meters and 415.5

C. Since then, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and on April 2, 2014, the Defendant filed for registration of ownership preservation on the said building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 35.9 million to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract and heard that it would settle the additional construction work from the Defendant, and since the additional construction work entered in the attached specifications, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the additional construction cost.

B. In full view of the reasoning of the foregoing evidence duly admitted, the following facts are as follows: (a) the steel framed Corporation listed in paragraph (1) and (2) the purpose of the building of this case, which was added to the time of the initial construction permission, was the “retail store and office” in the case of the initial construction permission; and (b) the construction of the building of this case, which was located in the facility listed in paragraph (2), was changed to the “retailing restaurant, etc.” which requires the installation of waterworks, etc. after being changed to the “retailing restaurant, etc.,” among