1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,226,274 as well as 5% per annum from April 26, 2013 to May 1, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the following: (a) 567,500,000 won for the construction work for multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) (hereinafter “instant construction”); (b) 4 multi-household housing units (the total of 91.62 square meters on the first floor retail store, 2 through 4, 750.48 square meters on each of 219.48 square meters on each of 219.48 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”); and (c) 567,50,000 won for construction work (the agreement to pay at the time of completion of the construction x 227 square meters (7 square meters) x 2,500,000 won per square year) and delivered the instant building to the Defendant on April 25, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff received reimbursement from the Defendant in total of KRW 546,273,726 from around November 2012 to April 2013 as the instant construction cost over several occasions.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the claim for the unpaid construction cost, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 21,226,274 (i.e., KRW 567,50,000 - KRW 546,273,726) and delay damages.

In regard to this, the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost after completion of the instant construction project and calculated the construction cost of the first floor by taking account of the fact that the construction cost of the instant case was much incurred, the Defendant paid the construction cost during the construction process due to financial difficulties of the Plaintiff, and in fact, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the construction cost of KRW 50,000 by KRW 550,000,000, around January 2013.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the construction cost of this case to KRW 50,000 on or around January 2013, 201, on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence No. 2 and the testimony of the witness D, as well as the testimony of the witness D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the above assertion by the Defendant

3. Claim for additional construction cost;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the parking lot was constructed on the first floor at the Defendant’s request, and the said parking lot was installed separately.