1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,713,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 1, 2016 to June 15, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. B (1) The Defendant, around December 2015, is located in Yong-Namnam-gun C (hereinafter “instant building”) in the Plaintiff on December 2, 2015.

(2) On February 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 50,400,000 to the Defendant by applying the above contract unit price to the actual construction quantity for the additional work. 2) The Plaintiff completed the above construction and claimed KRW 50,400,000 to the Defendant by applying the above contract unit price to the actual construction quantity.

B. (1) Around January 2016, the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with KRW 3,800,000 for the interior works of the D Center located in Yeongnam-gun E, Jeonnam-gun. (2) The Plaintiff completed the said construction works around January 2016.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 31,500,000 in total with the construction cost as above.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost (=50,400,000 won 3,800,000 won-31,500,000 won) and damages for delay, barring any special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiff calculated and claimed the amount in excess of the actual construction amount in the instant construction work. 2) The Plaintiff, while performing the instant construction work, intended to perform the construction work equally as different days from the previous one that was executed at the F construction site. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction work is offset against the Plaintiff’s damage claim in lieu of defect repair due to the foregoing different construction work, there is no construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff.

B. The evidence presented by the Defendant on the first argument of the judgment on the first argument alone is calculated in excess of the actual construction volume in the construction work of this case.