1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 40,871,500 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from July 8, 2015 to November 8, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that carries on the artificial park construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a person who owns celher (the trade name was changed to D; hereinafter “the instant telecom”) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si B.

B. On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) drafted and delivered a written estimate that the construction cost for remodeling the instant telecom was KRW 569 million to the Defendant; (b) around that time, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for remodeling the instant telecom (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the Defendant orally with the Defendant, setting the construction cost at KRW 50 million (excluding additional tax).

C. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction work and completed the said construction work on July 15, 2013.

Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleading.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff spent KRW 776,695,700 in total, including the construction cost of KRW 605,00,000 and the additional construction cost of KRW 171,695,700 in relation to the instant construction project. The Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 35,000 in total. The Defendant agreed to KRW 720,000 in reduction of the above construction cost, and the Defendant paid KRW 620,000 among them.

In addition, since the Plaintiff has failed to perform part of the construction work of passenger room cards and electric display and advertisement installation work during the instant construction work, the total amount of KRW 7.8 million should be deducted from the unpaid construction cost of KRW 100 million.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 92,220,000 as the construction cost of this case and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of determination is based on the premise that the Plaintiff incurred more than KRW 100 million in addition to the instant construction work, and this is examined.

It is not enough to recognize that the Plaintiff was additionally engaged in construction work exceeding KRW 100 million on the sole basis of each statement of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 11.