1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,915,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 26, 2015 to September 1, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2014, the Defendant awarded a contract to D for the manufacture of steel structure and the installation of steel structure (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the new construction works of C neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”), and the Plaintiff, upon receiving a request from D to estimate the instant construction works, issued a written estimate to D.

B. The Plaintiff manufactured steel structure at the construction site of the instant construction site and installed it by the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000 for construction cost on October 20, 2014.

C. Since then, at the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant additional construction”) additionally performed the installation of the second floor water tank and the installation of the test width.

On December 26, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate to the effect that “the Plaintiff submitted the test report and tax invoices to the sn beam beamline installed by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant construction work,” and on February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “the snive beam beamline was engaged in work without the statement that the snive beamline is an import material, and the unpaid construction cost was paid KRW 28,750,000.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction project and completed the instant construction project and the instant additional construction project.

Since then, disputes have occurred in relation to the sn beam beam material, the plaintiff and the defendant have reduced the existing construction cost and set the total construction cost of KRW 60,578,400, not so.

Even in this case, since the construction cost of KRW 59,563,00 recognized as a result of the appraisal of the construction cost in this case is recognized, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 24,563,00 (=59,563,000 - 35,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion is the plaintiff.