1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,041,181 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from February 24, 2016 to June 7, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around June 2015, the Plaintiff, a building business, filed by the Defendant at permanent residence from the Defendant to the Korea Housing Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the Plaintiff at KRW 110 million, the construction cost of KRW 15 million is indicated as KRW 100,000,000 in the construction contract (Evidence A). However, the Defendant’s submission contract (Evidence B) that the Plaintiff recognized the authenticity of construction, stating that the construction cost shall be reduced to KRW 110,000,000,000,000,000 won, and there is no other counter-proof by the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the construction cost is KRW 10,000,000,000.

Around July 2015, the housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) was completed on or around November 2015 after the construction was commenced.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 100 million from the Defendant as the instant construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant paid KRW 100,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff regarding the instant construction cost, and thus, the unpaid construction cost is KRW 10,000,000.

B. As to the additional construction costs, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was obliged to pay the above 1,350,000 won to the Plaintiff as the additional construction costs, on the ground that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff was at least 1,350,000 won of the price was at least 1,350,000 won of the boiler room. 2) As to the Plaintiff’s additional construction costs equivalent to KRW 7 million of the boiler room, the Defendant asserted that the boiler room was at the construction cycle without bearing additional costs.

The following circumstances, i.e., the multi-use room and boiler room, which can be seen as comprehensively taking into account the statements in Gap evidence 2, the testimony of witness D, the overall purport of the pleadings, and ① the construction specifications of this case are the additional work after completion.