1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,925,00 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 13, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a painting construction contract and a painting construction contract between the Defendant and the Defendant at the B’s site and the C’s site as follows.

B 28,000,000 construction cost on the construction site (the reduction of 2 million won from KRW 30 million to KRW 2,000,000), additional construction cost of KRW 7,750,00 (Additional Tax Table) C 39,000,000 (Additional Tax Table) plus KRW 74,750,000 (Additional Tax Table) (Additional Tax Table)

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5,500,000 in total as follows.

The fact that the payment date is non-paid on May 4, 2013, that D Company 5,000,000,000 D Company 5,000,000 on June 18, 2013, 203, July 9, 2013, 200,000 D Company 10,000,000 on August 13, 2013, 200,000 on September 17, 2013, 200, which had no ground for dispute over the total construction expenses under subparagraph 10,000,000,000,000 on December 31, 2013, 20, which had no ground for dispute over the settlement of construction expenses under subparagraph 10,00,000 E Company 20,000,000,000,000, 30,505,2013

2. According to the above facts, the defendant's original amount of KRW 26,725,00 (including additional tax) for the plaintiff's 23,925,000 (including additional tax) for the plaintiff's 26,725,00 (including additional tax) for the plaintiff's 74,750,000 additional tax for the 7,475,000 additional tax for the 55,50,000 additional tax for the repayment) or for the plaintiff's .

In addition, according to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 13, 2014 to the day of full payment after the service of the original copy of the instant payment order.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that he paid all the construction cost beyond the above payment, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.