1. The Defendant shall pay 13,200,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 24, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff running a supervision service business: (a) between the Defendant and the owner of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff concluded a supervision service agreement (hereinafter “instant service agreement”) with the Defendant for the Electricity, Telecommunications, and Fire Fighting Service Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction project”); (b) from April 1, 2013 to November 30, 2013 (8 months); (c) the service price of KRW 12 million (excluding value-added tax); and (d) KRW 1.5 million per month per extension of the contract period (excluding value-added tax).

B. Following the extension of the construction period of the instant case, the Plaintiff performed supervision services for the instant construction project for 16 months from April 1, 2013 to July 31, 2014, and the Jeju Fire Prevention Center submitted a report on the result of fire-fighting construction supervision to the Jeju Fire Prevention Center and received “certificate of fire-fighting system completion inspection (approval for use)” from the chief of the Jeju Fire Safety Station on August 1, 2014.

C. On November 25, 2014, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 13.2 million (the service cost of KRW 12 million) as the service cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not pay only KRW 13.2 million, which is the service cost of KRW 8 months, and the remainder KRW 13.2 million, even though the Defendant performed supervision services for 16 months. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not claim against the Defendant for payment of the remainder of the service cost of KRW 13.2 million and damages for delay.

B. If the service period has been extended more than eight months as stipulated in the instant service contract by the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff did not consult with the Defendant separately or prepare a new contract with regard to the service cost for the extended period.

In addition, the extension of the service period above is not the defendant's fault but the construction work delayed completion, so the defendant is not obliged to pay the service price for the extended period.

3. We examine the judgment.