1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The party's assertion and judgment

A. On December 8, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction was completed after entering into a contract with the Defendant for the interior metal works of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building (hereinafter “instant metal works”). On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff additionally carried out the construction of the said building entrance door shielding (hereinafter “instant additional construction”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 45,100,000 won with 2,277,000 won with 47,377,000 won with 27,295,000 won with excluding 20,295,000 won with respect to the instant metal works, and to pay 24,805,00 won with 5% interest per annum from January 13, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint from the next day to the day of full payment, and with respect to 2,277,00 won with 15% interest per annum from the next day of the instant complaint to the day of full payment. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 2,277,00 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

B. According to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 6-b (2) of the Agreement on the Construction of the Metal Works, the remaining construction cost of KRW 24,805,00 shall be paid after the Plaintiff completed the construction of the fourth floor light and the rear string, and the settlement of construction cost under Article 12 shall be conducted with a written confirmation of the head of the field office and a written confirmation of settlement of accounts. According to Article 17(1) of the Agreement on the Construction Work, the Plaintiff shall undergo the process of completion inspection after completion of the construction work. The Plaintiff did not complete the construction work of the instant metal and did not undergo such procedure. Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the instant metal construction cost.

In addition, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate on the instant additional construction works and actually performed the additional construction works. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant additional construction cost.