1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,964,345 as well as 5% per annum from March 13, 2013 to June 13, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 2012, the Plaintiff Company B, an employee of the Defendant, agreed to carry out interior interior interior interior decoration work with respect to Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C201 square meters (236.53 square meters in size of the exclusively owned part) owned by the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff from June 11, 2012 to the same year.

7. The interior interior interior interior works have been carried out by September, and the defendant has moved in the same year.

7. From around 15.15.

8. up to 24. The additional construction was carried out.

B. On June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate of KRW 130,160,00 (in the absence of any particular specification, value-added tax is an amount not included in value-added tax) to the Defendant, and written a written estimate of KRW 115,50,00 among June 2012, and a written estimate of KRW 127,834,000 as of July 4, 2012, and the Defendant paid KRW 7,500,00 to the Plaintiff as construction cost on June 8, 2012, and KRW 38,50,000 as of July 11, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant.

C. Around August 19, 2012, D, the Defendant’s wife, prepared documents demanding the change of the location of the bathing room for the kitchen room, the re-establishment of the auxiliary kitchen room separation board, and the repair of water leakage in the room room room room room for the Plaintiff Company B, who is the Plaintiff’s employee. After performing the above matters, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the purchase of bathing room products in addition to the expenses specified in the written estimate, 3,695,00 won for the purchase of bathing room products, 7,950,000 won for the toilet room, 96,90,000 won for the rest room, 90,000 won for the rest room, 90,000 won for the rest room, and 1,200,000 won for the rest room construction cost for the cancellation. However, the Defendant requested the Defendant to pay the construction cost to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost was KRW 127,834,00 with the Defendant and the interior interior interior interior decoration, and the construction was carried out additionally.