1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,826,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from April 15, 2013 to September 3, 2015.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff is performing the design, construction, etc. of a building in the name of C, and that the Defendant, around March 14, 2013, awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for a restaurant interior works (hereinafter “instant contract”) to the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff around March 14, 2013 in order to operate “E” at the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the building located D. (hereinafter “E”), there is no dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant’s construction cost of the instant case.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the contract price of this case was determined at KRW 49,10,00 (excluding value-added tax) at the first time, and that it was determined at KRW 14,286,615 (excluding value-added tax) as an agreement among the defendant, and that the final construction price was at KRW 63,386,615 (excluding value-added tax) in total. Since the plaintiff completed the construction of this case, the defendant had a duty to claim compensation for damages arising out of the remainder of KRW 39,725,276 (excluding value-added tax) after deducting KRW 30,00,000 which was already paid by the defendant after the completion of the construction of the construction of this case, 39,725,276 ( Won 63,386,615 x 1.1)-30,000,000, which was part of the contract of this case, and the defendant did not have a duty to claim compensation for damages arising out of the construction work.

B. First of all, we examine whether the instant construction cost was determined as KRW 63,386,615 (excluding value-added tax).

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 6-4, the part which does not exceed KRW 49,00,000 among the construction cost of this case can be acknowledged as having been agreed upon as the construction cost, but the part which separately agreed on the excessive portion and value-added tax.