1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,523,458 as well as 5% per annum from February 9, 2015 to November 15, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2015, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the tegrative construction business under the trade name of “C”, concluded a construction contract with the Defendant with respect to the “Egrative apartment and 2802 Dong-dong 902 apartment” (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) that the Defendant and the Defendant would have occupied the said apartment as “C” (hereinafter “the instant apartment”), with respect to “the Plaintiff, after performing artificial construction works for the said apartment, uses the said apartment as a interior house, and from January 2, 2015 to February 28, 2015, using the said apartment as a interior house, and the Defendant’s total construction cost of KRW 16,50,000 (the contract amount of KRW 3,500,000) to the Plaintiff at the time of commencement of construction works, the remainder, 3,000,000,000 at each payment at the time of completion of construction works.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract,” and the said interior works are referred to as the “instant construction”). B.

The Plaintiff completed most of the instant construction works, and the Defendant paid KRW 8,500,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On February 7, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she had a dispute with the Defendant’s wife due to the demand for unreasonable change of the Defendant’s continued period and the payment of KRW 8,000,000 for construction cost. On February 8, 2015, the following day, the Defendant expressed his/her intent not to maintain the instant contract unilaterally, such as without notifying the Plaintiff of the change of the entrance password of the instant apartment on the following day, and the Plaintiff was unable to use the instant apartment as a house that further seeks the instant apartment due to the Defendant’s breach of contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 43,403,50 (i) KRW 20,500,000 (ii) KRW 8,900,000 (iii) KRW 12,703,500 (iv) KRW 1,300,000) and damages for delay as follows.

① The instant contract is originally concluded.