1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 14, 2014 to June 23, 2016, and the following.

On June 5, 2013, the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the construction cost of KRW 610,000,000,000 for the C neighborhood living facilities and the new housing construction work.

On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the above construction and delivered the above building to the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition] No. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings is liable to pay the following amount and delay damages to the plaintiff.

The design drawing of the construction cost for the extension of the rooftop floor is the garre, which is a non-resident with a height of 5.39 square meters and 1.8 meters, but the defendant extended the construction cost to a residential facility with a size of 29.67 square meters and height of 2.6 meters at the defendant's request, and the defendant paid the extension construction cost by calculating it on an average basis

Extension construction cost is 9,192,298 won (24.28 square meters x 4,085,350 won).

Unlike the initial agreement, the Defendant expressed balcony expansion construction cost in a way that balcony (the Plaintiff expressed “balcon,” but in light of its location, the Plaintiff demanded the extended construction work so that balcony can be used as a room, and the cost of the construction work is paid in half of the ordinary construction cost, thereby completing the balcony expansion construction work.

Expansion construction cost is 40,63,708 won (area 19.8924 square meters x 2,042,675 won).

After completion, the Defendant contracted an additional construction work with the additional construction cost of KRW 28 million to the Plaintiff and completed the construction work. However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 20 million and paid KRW 8 million.

Judgment

It is recognized that the extension of the construction cost of the rooftop floor, different from the design drawing, was performed according to the Plaintiff’s assertion (Evidence A No. 3-5, 8, and 9). However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to newly construct a residential facility, different from the design drawing, and agreed to construct a rooftop, a kitchen, a toilet, a boiler room, etc. on the rooftop (Article 9 and 12 of the Detailed Construction Details of Evidence No. 1). In light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to construct a new residential facility as well as the construction work in accordance with the agreement.

Unlike the initial arrangement.