1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for urban gas facility construction with the construction cost of KRW 2.7 million as to part of the building of Leecheon-si, the Defendant-owned, around October 2016, and completed the construction on or around February 2017. The fact that, around August 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for urban gas facility construction with the additional construction cost of KRW 2.5 million as to the remainder of the building in question and completed the construction (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant construction”), and the Plaintiff received payment of KRW 2.5 million out of the construction cost of the instant case from the Defendant until August 2017, and the Plaintiff was demanded from the Defendant to pay KRW 2.5 million of the construction cost of the instant case from the time to time, and there was no dispute between the parties to the agreement to reduce the construction cost and the Defendant, or recognition of the purport of the entire statement and evidence No. 1 through No. 4 and evidence No. 5.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 2.54 million (the construction cost of KRW 5.2 million - the construction cost of KRW 2.5 million - the construction cost of KRW 2.5 million - the reduction of the construction cost of KRW 1.60 million) and the delay damages.

2. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s instant construction was delayed, and the Defendant incurred losses, such as additional burden of KRW 1080,000 from December 17, 2016 to January 26, 2017, and thus, there was no obligation to pay the remainder of the construction cost. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was insufficient to the effect that the Plaintiff’s construction was delayed.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the expenses incurred by the Defendant incurred due to the delay in the construction, and there is no other evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff voluntarily recognized the delay of the construction of this case by granting a reduction in part of the construction cost.