1. The Defendant’s KRW 56,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from January 25, 2018 to August 23, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a payment of the beauty shop construction cost of KRW 110 million (excluding value-added tax) for the beauty shop construction work located on the second floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul building C, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, for the determination of the cause of the claim, and the fact that the construction work has been completed is not clearly asserted by the Defendant.

According to the above, the defendant is obligated to pay the money claimed by the plaintiff as not being paid the construction price, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of reduction

A. The Defendant asserts that the construction work is delayed and the Plaintiff had to reduce the construction price of KRW 10 million. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff could not reduce the construction price by December 2017, since the Defendant had paid the construction price by December 2017.

B. If the parties to the determination entered into an agreement on the reduction of KRW 10 million among the construction price, there is no dispute, but there is a dispute as to whether the agreement was made on the condition of suspending payment by the end of December 2017.

The fact that a certain juristic act constitutes a so-called conditional juristic act which takes effect upon the fulfillment of a condition shall bear the burden of proof for a person who seeks to challenge the occurrence of the legal effect on the grounds of preventing the occurrence of the legal effect by such juristic act.

However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement on the reduction of the construction price as seen earlier was added to the conditions asserted by the Plaintiff, the above agreement on the reduction of the construction price should be considered as an agreement without any condition.

Therefore, the defendant's defense to reduce the above price is justified.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s conclusion is as from January 25, 2018, the following day after the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, which is the KRW 56 million, which the Plaintiff claimed to reduce the construction cost of KRW 66 million, which the Plaintiff claimed to the Plaintiff.