1. The Defendant’s KRW 65,942,016 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from November 7, 2017 to May 17, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2016, the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the construction cost of KRW 1,193,500,000 (including value-added tax) for the instant construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) on the basis of the construction cost rate of KRW 1,193,50,000 (including value-added tax), February 20, 2017 scheduled date for commencement, September 10, 2017; and one percent per day for delay penalty rate of KRW 1,100 per day.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”). (b)

By September 12, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,130,677,584, a total of KRW 1,030,67,584, and KRW 100,000,00 on December 28, 2017, with the construction cost paid to the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant obtained approval for use of the instant building on November 6, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-paid construction cost shall be paid to the plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 62,822,416 and damages for delay. 2) The plaintiff paid additional construction cost at the request of the defendant. Thus, the defendant shall pay the additional construction cost of KRW 38,51,090 and damages for delay.

B. 1) Determination 1) The fact that the Defendant paid only KRW 1,130,677,584 of the instant construction cost is as stated in the above 1.1. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost (i.e., construction cost of KRW 1,193,50,500,000 - KRW 1,130,677,584) and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff. (ii) As to the additional construction cost, Article 34(3) of the instant contract provides that “The determination on the additional construction cost shall take precedence over the drawings and general specifications,” and thus, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the contents and scope of the instant construction work based on the contract specifications.