1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,015,191 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 3, 2018 to April 19, 2019, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 22, 2016, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for interior works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) by setting the period from March 24, 2016 to May 28, 2016 with respect to the first and second floors of Jongno-gu Seoul C building (hereinafter “instant building”). The construction cost was KRW 214,454,90, and the construction cost was KRW 214,454,90.

B. On May 23, 2016, the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant representing the Defendant agreed to set the construction cost of the instant construction project, including additional construction, at KRW 277,491,610 (including value-added tax 25,226,510).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant settlement agreement”). C.

On June 18, 2016, the Plaintiff issued the key to the instant building to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, the Defendant paid KRW 242,265,100 to the Plaintiff as construction cost for the instant construction work.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The criteria to distinguish between the failure to complete construction of a new building for the unpaid construction price from the failure to complete construction works and the failure to complete the last process scheduled to be interrupted during the course of the construction works are deemed to have completed the construction works. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction is completed once the last process intended to be completed and its main structure is completed as a building under social norms as agreed upon. However, if the construction is to be repaired due to incomplete defects, it is reasonable to interpret that it is only a defect in an object completed but only if the last process intended to be completed in individual cases is objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the construction contract and the good faith principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da44768, Dec. 23, 1997). However, if each of the above evidence and the facts of recognition are added to the whole rats, the Plaintiff delivered the key to the instant building to the Defendant.