1. The defendant, from the plaintiff, has a defect in the C hotel Corporation in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a company that operates indoor decoration construction business, and the defendant is a person who operates a hotel specified in paragraph (1) of this Article.

B. On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with respect to the remodeling work of the said hotel (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The construction price was determined as KRW 30 million, value-added tax 30 million, and total amount of KRW 330 million.

C. Additional construction cost of KRW 18 million was incurred among the instant construction projects. D.

The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 310,000,000 as the construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion shall pay to the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 20 million, additional construction cost of KRW 18 million, value added tax of KRW 1.8 million, total amount of KRW 39 million, and delay damages therefrom.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the unpaid construction cost, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff approved the Plaintiff’s additional construction work on or around May 14, 2014, and the fact that the additional construction cost was 18 million won is as seen above. The fact that the unpaid amount among the construction cost stipulated in the instant contract is 20 million won does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 38 million ( KRW 20 million) and damages for delay.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to bear value-added tax on the additional construction cost, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to this is without merit.

B. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion (1) did not perform the Plaintiff’s film heating work equivalent to KRW 9,486,400 included in the construction contract of this case, and 5,500,000, in a quantity equivalent to KRW 7,034,038, and the Defendant’s direct floor was removed, and the film heating work was 23,840,000,000.