1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from October 13, 2018 to July 31, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 4, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings.

On October 30, 2017, the Defendant received 3.465 billion won (including value added tax) from D Co., Ltd. for the construction of a new Empug neighborhood living facility from November 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018.

B. As above, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to implement the earth and sand construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the newly constructed neighborhood living facilities that were supplied by Company D, and subcontracted KRW 240,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

C. On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, from October 25, 2017 to April 30, 2018, drafted a contract for construction work in which the period of the instant construction work was indicated as KRW 335,00,000 (excluding surtax).

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that: (a) the Plaintiff completed all construction works under the instant construction contract; and (b) the additional construction works were conducted by oral contracts; (c) the first construction works were conducted by the soil market construction method; (d) the costs of KRW 27,160,00, while converting the said additional construction works into the CIP construction method; and (e) the cost of KRW 25,675,00, and later re-inform the cost of KRW 25,118,500, including the cost of KRW 25,675,00 at the request of the head of the site office, etc. (= = 27,160,000 won) x 1.1); and (e) the said additional amount was agreed to bear all

Therefore, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 368,50,000 for the instant construction cost (=35,000,000 x 1.1) and KRW 426,618,50 for additional construction cost, although the Defendant paid KRW 341,113,250 for additional construction cost, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 85,505,250 for the remainder and delay damages.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the construction price of this case, including the value added tax, was 368,50,000,000 and the fact that the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as the cause of the construction price, was 341,113,250, is a dispute between the parties.