1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Around March 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff was subcontracted to KRW 3,500,000 for construction of solar energy facilities on the rooftop of the 10th floor building located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”) does not conflict between the parties.

In addition, according to the purport of each film and pleading evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the Plaintiff came to know that there was no “slight beamline” which can fix solar energy facilities in the sculptures installed on the front of the building in order to perform the instant construction work on or around April 7, 2015. The Plaintiff, in consultation with the Defendant and the owner of the building, has fixed the left columns of solar facilities to the above sculpture, and installed the right columns under the above 6m of the construction site. The costs incurred in the said additional construction are 3,216,00 won, and the Plaintiff completed all of the instant construction and the said additional construction.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 6,716,00 (= KRW 3,500,000) for the instant construction and the said additional construction costs and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 25, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. B, the main owner of the argument, raised a problem that solar energy facilities installed by the Plaintiff were not considered in the sculptures on the rooftop of the building, and the Plaintiff performed an additional construction project to remove some structures to solve these problems. Therefore, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the additional construction cost.

In addition, the construction of this case and the above additional construction costs claimed by the plaintiff were unrefilled.

B. However, the Defendant is at all the solar facilities established by the Plaintiff.