The defendant's 6,085,820 won and its 6% per annum from May 16, 2013 to December 15, 2016 to the plaintiff.

1. The facts below the basis of facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), with a comprehensive consideration of the whole purport of the pleadings, unless otherwise specifically mentioned. (a)

On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant to settle the construction cost according to the actual quantity after the completion of construction, with the Korea-nam Apartment Complex (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) 119 and 122 square landscaping works for each construction period (hereinafter “122 original square landscaping works”).

(hereinafter referred to as "19 Dong Landscape Project Contract" and "122 Dong original square Landscape Project Contract". (b)

In addition, around March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff made an oral agreement with the Defendant to conclude an additional construction project for various landscaping, such as the construction of the instant apartment, site creation, planting, etc. (hereinafter “instant additional construction project”), and agreed that the construction cost shall be calculated according to the actual quantity after the completion of construction, and the profit therefrom shall be calculated in a way that the construction cost shall be calculated according to the actual quantity after the completion of construction.

(hereinafter “instant Additional Construction Contract”). C.

The Plaintiff performed construction work under each of the instant construction contracts, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of each of the instant construction contracts on May 15, 2013, and the Plaintiff suspended each of the instant construction works on the same day.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the 119 East 119 landscaping works, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, while performing the 119 East 119 landscaping works, the construction work was executed as much as the amount stated in the "settlement quantity" column as to each item as stated in the separate sheet No. 1.

On the other hand, the Defendant actually executed the amount of construction by the Plaintiff is as indicated in the attached Form 1’s “Review Quantity.”