1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,741,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 1, 2014 to July 13, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the content that the waterproof Construction Work is to be subcontracted and executed during the construction period from April 15, 2014 to July 20, 2014, among the construction works for the construction of the college of Jeju National University (III), the term of construction cost of KRW 79,30,730 (the changed to KRW 77,561,00 in Ghana), and the term of construction period of construction from April 15, 2014 to July 20, 2014. In short, on September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a new construction project with the content that the additional waterproof Construction Work is to be subcontracted and executed during the construction period of KRW 26,741,00, and the construction period of construction period from September 2, 2014 to September 13, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff completed all of the above construction works within the fixed period, but only the construction cost of KRW 77,561,00 has not been paid to the Defendant for the additional construction cost of KRW 26,741,00.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1-2, Gap’s evidence 2, Gap’s evidence 3-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 26,741,000 won of the above additional construction cost and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 1, 2014 to July 13, 2015, the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

3. The defendant's argument regarding the plaintiff's assertion is that although the plaintiff did not comply with the plaintiff's request for repair of defects since the plaintiff did not comply with the plaintiff's request for repair of defects in relation to the part constructed on the rooftop of the building, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above defects alleged by the defendant were caused due to the plaintiff's error in construction related to the part constructed work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. The above argument by the defendant is with merit.