1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 146,953,444 for the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from November 26, 2014 to December 11, 2014 for the Plaintiff.

1. On June 11, 2013, the key issue of this case was that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new urban residential house in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The key issue of this case is whether the defendant should pay the construction cost to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In light of the field photographs and completion-related documents submitted by the Plaintiff as to whether the construction was completed, and the process of consultation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the settlement of construction costs (A 5,68,14), the Plaintiff is deemed to have completed the construction under the contract at around February 2014.

B. Since the Plaintiff completed the construction project, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 146,953,444 (the construction cost of KRW 494,00,000 which was promised at the time of the contract - the already paid amount of KRW 347,046,556) and the delay damages.

The plaintiff asserts that there was a settlement agreement on the total construction cost of KRW 149,300,00, including additional construction cost.

The plaintiff proposed that the construction cost remaining to the defendant should be settled at KRW 149,300,00 after the completion of the construction work, and that the defendant paid the construction cost to the plaintiff at KRW 149,30,000, and that the 100,000,000, among which the 100,000 won was suggested that the approval for the use of the building and the conditions of concurrent performance are defective (the purport of the whole pleadings). However, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant's proposal constitutes a new proposal with the conditions of simultaneous performance, and that the plaintiff

Therefore, it is insufficient to view that the submitted evidence alone was the final agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the settlement of construction cost.

We cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that settlement agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

C. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that there was no agreement to waive the penalty for delay.

However, according to Gap 4, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to change the completion date of construction into February 10, 2014 and not to charge compensation for delay.