1. The defendant's KRW 76,300,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from June 5, 2020 to December 17, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2020, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the double construction of the Suwon-gu Officetel (hereinafter “instant officetel”) at KRW 89,100,000 for the construction cost (including value-added tax).

B. On April 7, 2020, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the instant officetel parking lot at KRW 2,200,000 (including value-added tax).

C. The Plaintiff completed the above double window construction and the saw construction for parking lots, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 15,000,000,000, in total, to the Plaintiff on May 9, 2020 and May 11, 2020, KRW 15,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 76,300,000 (=2,200,000 - 15,000,000) and damages for delay.

The plaintiff asserts that the construction cost of KRW 5,000,000 should be paid additionally from the defendant, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the items in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

B. As to the judgment of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant suffered a large number of unconstructions, erroneous constructions, and defects in the part of the Plaintiff’s construction, and the Plaintiff applied for the registration of ownership transfer and the provisional seizure of claim against the instant officetel and suffered damages to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim was alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is unjustifiable. However, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 in the Plaintiff

The application for provisional attachment by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the damage was incurred to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is true.