1. The Defendant’s KRW 62,935,400 as well as 5% per annum from August 1, 2017 to December 6, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “C,” performed the instant construction work by being awarded a contract with the Defendant for the installation of the interior and exterior walls among the Daejeon Seo-gu D and E-ground buildings that the Defendant performed (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. After executing the instant construction project in accordance with a written estimate, the construction project is to settle the actual part of the construction project according to the unit price. The construction cost that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff in relation to the instant construction project is KRW 194,820,000.

C. After the appraiser F was measured in relation to the instant construction project, the total construction cost calculated at the unit price set out in the estimate of 2015 agreed between the parties is KRW 223,134,00 (excluding value-added tax).

In addition, the cost of remuneration for the part that needs to be repaired due to defects in the part constructed by the plaintiff is the total of 73,888 won (excluding value-added tax).

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, results of the appraiser F's appraisal (including response to supplementary appraisal), purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Major consideration shall be given to the contents of the briefs submitted under the title of the Defendant’s final written reply dated September 11, 2018, according to the order of composition of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff.

(Reference documents submitted after the closing of pleadings). The specific amount of the unpaid construction cost shall be determined as follows.

- The assertion that there is an error of omission of KRW 2.3 million in the appraisal in relation to the total construction cost of KRW 245,447,400 (including value added tax) as a result of the appraisal was withdrawn after the response to the supplementary appraisal.

- Additional construction cost: The Plaintiff asserts that the construction cost additionally executed at the Defendant’s request is KRW 14,608,000, but it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion in addition to all documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and witness G.

However, the defendant is the person who is in charge of labor cost of KRW 400,000 and the additional tax invoice of KRW 12,80,000.